Pritzker LANDSLIDE
| cracking effete macaca | 03/20/18 | | Crimson Dysfunction | 03/20/18 | | cracking effete macaca | 03/20/18 | | Crimson Dysfunction | 03/20/18 | | pungent base internal respiration | 03/20/18 | | Crimson Dysfunction | 03/20/18 | | amber rebellious marketing idea kitchen | 03/20/18 | | Cerebral idiot | 03/20/18 | | Crimson Dysfunction | 03/20/18 | | cracking effete macaca | 03/20/18 | | hyperactive frum degenerate half-breed | 03/20/18 | | nighttime sound barrier preventive strike | 03/20/18 | | Deep flickering chapel jewess | 03/20/18 | | Crimson Dysfunction | 03/20/18 | | hyperactive frum degenerate half-breed | 03/20/18 | | nighttime sound barrier preventive strike | 03/20/18 | | Crimson Dysfunction | 03/20/18 | | hyperactive frum degenerate half-breed | 03/20/18 | | Deep flickering chapel jewess | 03/20/18 | | Crimson Dysfunction | 03/20/18 | | hyperactive frum degenerate half-breed | 03/20/18 | | Deep flickering chapel jewess | 03/20/18 | | Crimson Dysfunction | 03/20/18 | | cracking effete macaca | 03/20/18 | | Lilac box office | 03/20/18 | | Crimson Dysfunction | 03/20/18 | | Canary Hyperventilating Space | 03/20/18 | | marvelous bat-shit-crazy theater | 03/20/18 | | Lilac box office | 03/20/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
|
Date: March 20th, 2018 11:23 PM Author: Deep flickering chapel jewess
The Sun-Times inquired about some errors made in the Evanston Democrat’s mathematical papers, including an “erratum” — or an error in printing or writing — made to the Annals of Mathematics about a 2003 paper and another “erratum” submitted for a paper he wrote in 2006. Another paper from 2002 was retracted. Some of the errors were noted on Retraction Watch, which tracks scientific errors.
The website in February noted a retraction in a paper Biss wrote in 2002. “Topology and its Applications” wrote that the article was retracted “after receiving a complaint about anomalies.” The editors asked for further reviews “which indicated that the definitions in the paper are ambiguous and most results were false.” The website followed up and said the journal noted the findings were “inaccurate” but “not fraudulent.”
Editors of “Topology and its Applications” said Biss was contacted with “twelve specific, documented errors” and asked to review the findings.
“We offered him the opportunity, if Biss felt it to be appropriate, to publish an addendum in Topology and its Applications. Biss responded with ‘Thank you for writing. I am no longer in mathematics and so don’t feel equipped to fully evaluate these claims. I certainly do not dispute them. If you would like to publish a retraction to that effect, that would seem to me to be an appropriate course of action,'” editors told Retraction Watch.
The problem with that, Retraction Watch noted, is that the paper was cited 27 times since it was first published. The site also notes two other “errata” for papers Biss published — with a Russian mathematician named Nikolai Mnev pointing out the errors.
[...]
Biss’ campaign noted that “in a few cases” some of his papers “didn’t stand up.” But they said “revisions” are part of a normal part of the academic process. A CBS News story from 2015 noted that just 0.02 percent of some three million mathematical papers were retracted, but retractions are not necessarily seen as a bad thing. Instead, many view them as a better option than scientists and mathematicians choosing to let their errors live on in the academic realm.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/are-gov-hopeful-bisss-claims-of-math-prowess-pi-in-the-sky/
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3924081&forum_id=2#35649975) |
|
|