Randomly Generated Math Article Accepted By 'Open-Access' Journal 197
call -151 writes "Many years ago, a human-generated intentionally nonsense paper was accepted by the (prominent) literary culture journal Social Text. In August, a randomly-generated nonsense mathematics paper was accepted by one of the many low-tier 'open-access' research mathematics journals. The software Mathgen, which generated the accepted submission, takes as inputs author names (or those can be randomly selected also) and generates nicely TeX'd and impressive-sounding sentences which are grammatically correct but mathematically disconnected nonsense. This was reviewed by a human, (quickly, for math, in 12 days) and the reviewers' comments mention superficial problems with the submission (PDF). The references are also randomly-generated and rather hilarious. For those with concerns about submitting to lower-tier journals in an effort to promote open access, this is not a good sign!"
Argument (Score:5, Funny)
have facts for those who think and arguments for those who reason. For the sake of review, if five years ago I had described a person like Mr. Slasdhot Person to you and told you that in five years he'd fill the air with recrimination and rancor, you'd have thought me contumelious. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how he has written more than his fair share of lengthy, over-worded, pseudo-intellectual tripe. In all such instances Slasdhot conveniently overlooks the fact that his greed will be his undoing. In the presence of high heaven and before the civilized world I therefore assert that he has repeatedly threatened to elevate his campaigns to prominence as epistemological principles. Maybe that's just for maximum scaremongering effect. Or maybe it's because Slasdhot should start developing the parts of his brain that have been impaired by Leninism. At least then he'll stop trying to put narrow-minded thoughts in our children's minds.
On the surface, it would seem merely that Slasdhot's blithe disregard for the victims of his myopic effusions is what first made me realize that Slasdhot is offended by the truth. But the truth is that if anything, Slasdhot has planted his habitués everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance Slasdhot's ability to fortify a social correctness that restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries, but it also provides irrefutable evidence that he motivates people to join his terrorist organization by using words like "humanity", "compassion", and "unity". This is a great deception. What Slasdhot really wants to do is promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. That's why Slasdhot's argument that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal is hopelessly flawed and absolutely circuitous.
A "respected" member of Slasdhot's brownshirt brigade recently said (to closely paraphrase), "Slasdhot is above everyone else". To top that off, if you're like most people you just shrug your shoulders whenever you hear about Slasdhot's latest ugly sottises. When your shoulders get tired of shrugging I hope you'll realize that I obviously hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Slasdhot does any real damage. Or is it already too late? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I've answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I'll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I'll just say that Slasdhot accuses me of being impolite in my responses to his incoherent, intransigent methods of interpretation. Let's see
Could be worse... (Score:5, Funny)
It could have been worse. They could have accepted a legitimate paper on mathematics written by a person with a Computer Science degree.
Re:Argument (Score:5, Funny)
Brilliant references! (Score:5, Funny)
This is awesome:
O. Jackson, J. Li, and N. D. Nehru. A First Course in Advanced p-Adic Calculus. Zambian Mathematical Society, 1935.
Re:Argument (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Argument (Score:5, Funny)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Fusce rhoncus risus ut lacus scelerisque porta iaculis tortor laoreet. Aliquam et ligula purus. Mauris varius erat dictum sapien semper aliquam. Ut vitae mi a diam malesuada feugiat. Nam lacinia enim quis nunc congue facilisis. Nullam pellentesque, eros at viverra mollis, tortor arcu cursus nulla, nec pulvinar orci nulla eget ligula. Donec nec massa risus. Pellentesque malesuada urna non magna dapibus id aliquam ante viverra. Nullam mattis leo vitae orci rutrum vulputate.
Re:View from the outside (Score:5, Funny)
Or, as a math professor would say,
"Heuristic findings indicate that sentiments expressed thusly reflecting disdain of empirically-recognized obfuscated expressions of otherwise archetypal theorems are invariably mirrored for all terms adjoining dx=log(N)+tY^x on alternating Tuesdays in July."
Re:Brilliant references! (Score:3, Funny)
Citation [19] is better:
[19] D. Pythagoras and O. Shastri. Algebraically algebraic, Dirichlet, contra-holomorphic monoids for a compactly non-Polya, uncountable, solvable graph. Sudanese Mathematical Journal, 93:1-404, July 2009.
Re:Big deal? Not really. (Score:5, Funny)
Case in point: Antarctica Journal of Mathematics [domainsmoon.com].
Re:What next? (Score:5, Funny)
This is Hilarious: (Score:5, Funny)
For all those upholding the /. tradition of not reading the article, here are the concerns voiced by the reviewer in the acceptance letter and the 'authors' responses to them :
Dear Author,
Thank you for your contribution to the Advances in Pure Mathematics (APM). We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript:
ID : 5300285
TITLE : Independent, negative, canonically Turing arrows of equations and problems in applied formal PDE
AUTHORS :Marcie Rathke
has been accepted. Congratulations!
Anyway, the manuscript has some flaws are required to be revised :
(1) For the abstract, I consider that the author can’t introduce the main idea and work of this topic specifically. We can’t catch the main thought from this abstract. So I suggest that the author can reorganize the descriptions and give the keywords of this paper.
2) In this paper, we may find that there are so many mathematical expressions and notations. But the author doesn’t give any introduction for them. I consider that for these new expressions and notations, the author can indicate the factual meanings of them.
(3) In part 2, the author gives the main results. On theorem 2.4, I consider that the author should give the corresponding proof.
(4) Also, for proposition 3.3 and 3.4, the author has better to show the specific proving processes.
(5) The format of this paper is not very standard. Please follow the format requirements of this journal strictly.
Please revised your paper and send it to us as soon as possible.
The author has asked me to include her responses to the referee’s comments:
1. The referee’s objection is well taken; indeed, the abstract has not the slightest thing to do with the content of the paper.
2. The paper certainly does contain a plethora of mathematical notation, but it is to be hoped that readers with the appropriate background can infer its meaning (or lack thereof) from context.
3. It is indeed customary for a mathematical paper to contain a proof of its main result. This omission admittedly represents a slight flaw in the manuscript. The author believes the proofs given for the referenced propositions are entirely sufficient [they read, respectively, "This is obvious" and "This is clear"]. However, she respects the referee’s opinion and would consider adding a few additional details.
4. On this point the author must strenuously object. The LATEX formatting of the manuscript is perfectly standard and in accordance with generally accepted practice. The same cannot be said of APM’s required template, which uses Microsoft Word [!].
5. Professor Rathke is pleased that the referee nevertheless recommends the paper be accepted, since clearly these minor differences of opinion in no way affect the paper’s overall validity and significance.
Bummer.
Comedy gold
Also it seems that author declined to pay the $500 it would cost to publish the paper, hmmm...
Re:Argument (Score:5, Funny)
Shaka, when the walls fell
Re:Could be worse... (Score:4, Funny)
And that would somehow be bad... or perhaps even funny?
Let me just put it this way: The mathematics and computer science departments don't have an "uneasy truce" so much as they have a "wildly unstable system of avoiding each other in the hallways"...
Re:Big deal? Not really. (Score:5, Funny)
OW! MY EYES!
You should really post a warning when linking to a site that uses a geocities template. And even though it's not as NSFW as goatse, my monitor is now on fire, the fabric is burning off the walls of my cubicle, and my retinas are bleeding.
Re:Argument (Score:5, Funny)
Google translate actually gave me a laugh:
This page is required to post a comment. Learn More About Us About Us Back gate. Other indicators and pure. About Us It was always something. Saved me from the platform's growth. For right now, for one more question. Events, but the job's soft, no industrial base bow, nor China's no need for more. Technical mass laughter. Beating a protein that's not a banana in front of traffic. Find a comprehensive clinical shovel life online.
Re:Brilliant references! (Score:4, Funny)
Also be sure to check out the brilliant paper [seclists.org] recently published by Hakin9 in their issue on Nmap.
The authors detail the working of their DARPA Inference Cheking Kludge Scanner (DICKS), and cite such prominent references as
Z. Sun, "Towards the synthesis of vacuum tubes," Journal of Concurrent, Extensible Technology, vol. 84, pp. 1-19, Feb. 2005.
C. Hoare, J. Wilkinson, and D. Ritchie, "Contrasting Scheme and Internet QoS using SluicyMash," Journal of Flexible, Omniscient Epistemologies, vol. 20, pp. 154-194, Feb. 2000
Some excerpts:
"Obviously, event-driven modalities and web browsers are based entirely on the assumption that extreme programming and digital-to-analog converters are not in conflict with the deployment of massive multiplayer online role-playing games."
"We show our method's real-time evaluation in Figure 1. We consider a framework consisting of n flip-flop gates. Such a claim might seem counter intuitive but is derived from known results. Next, NMAP does not require such a theoretical emulation to run correctly, but it doesn't hurt. This seems to hold in most cases. We use our previously enabled results as a basis for all of these assumptions. This seems to hold in most cases."
"Figure 1.3: The 10th-percentile latency of NMAP, as a function of popularity of IPv7"
Re:Argument (Score:4, Funny)
Beating a protein that's not a banana in front of traffic
Better be careful about that.