Re: [PrimeNumbers] Goldbach proof by Bichitra Kalita?
- --- On Wed, 10/3/12, WarrenS <warren.wds@...> wrote:
> For several (unconvincing) reasons I doubt it."International Journal of ..............."
> But anyway, Kalita has a web page
> and here is a sample paper by him (which does not have
> anything to do with Goldbach, but it is illuminating)
> Bichitra Kalita:
> PARTITIONING OF SPECIAL CIRCUITS
> Feb 2012 IJMIE
Already sounds like the bogus conferences who spam sci.math, sci.crypt, comp.compression, etc. .
"............... Management, IT and Engineering"
Oh, my, yeah, that's the kind of thing. (Do you like my new extra-long ellipses - I learnt that from reading the paper!)
It describes itself as:
"A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal"
Double-blind? So the authors aren't even allowed to know what paper they're writing? That explains the following:
> Volume 2, Issue 2Not for someone with eyesight like mine - it's painful!
> ISSN: 2249-0558
> you have to scroll down about 40% of the way down the scroll
> bar to reach his paper [this file is an entire issue].
> Anyway, it is amazing reading this paper.
> You may have heard of the guys who submitted papers made upThe first word that came to mind when reading that proof was "WOO!".
> of random words, generated by neural nets outputting "random
> journalese," etc -- and those nonsense-papers were
> nevertheless accepted by certain "respected conferences"
> after "refereeing" thus proving those conferences were
> pretty bogus and their main purpose was to collect hefty
> fees. Well, this sample paper by Kalita is a lot like
At least, like the the Markov-generated papers, his references weren't random - almost all of them were his own prior work. And we all know what I think about supporting yourself with your own bootstraps.
> It describes itself as:I agree with your assessment of the journal, and assume you know that in this context double blind means the author does not know the referee (usual) and the referee does not know the author (less so, and actually often hard to do).
>"A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal"
>Double-blind? So the authors aren't even allowed to know what paper they're writing? That explains the following:
> At least, like the the Markov-generated papers, his references weren't random - almost all of them were his own prior work. And we all know what I think about supporting yourself with your own bootstraps.That was my thought--I have never seen an author use his own name so often. I do not think I would be able to do it even as a joke.