aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/content
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDimitri Staessens <dimitri@ouroboros.rocks>2021-11-28 13:46:54 +0100
committerDimitri Staessens <dimitri@ouroboros.rocks>2021-11-28 13:46:54 +0100
commit76d629fb6ecee355f4343edb475e20ccdaaee6f8 (patch)
tree01da15e9a97fdac09b46e85220df1117eca6eb2c /content
parent16588968dbba96be9a05fd2e9ef63a2566d45ce5 (diff)
downloadwebsite-76d629fb6ecee355f4343edb475e20ccdaaee6f8.tar.gz
website-76d629fb6ecee355f4343edb475e20ccdaaee6f8.zip
blog: Further revise note
Diffstat (limited to 'content')
-rw-r--r--content/en/blog/2021115-rejected.md25
1 files changed, 12 insertions, 13 deletions
diff --git a/content/en/blog/2021115-rejected.md b/content/en/blog/2021115-rejected.md
index 555c16d..b60ec93 100644
--- a/content/en/blog/2021115-rejected.md
+++ b/content/en/blog/2021115-rejected.md
@@ -46,17 +46,16 @@ Cheers,
Dimitri
-[^1]: The most ironic being that the reviewer (yes, we got only a
- single reviewer) accuses me of redefining graph theory and using
- pseudo-mathematics, without counter-examples or counter-proof or
- even a polite request for clarification. Even worse, the
- reviewer then claims that a _closed walk_ is the same as a
- _Hamiltonian path_. What the actual fuck. In a walk, vertices
- can be visited multiple times. All definitions in the paper are
- taken straight out of Dieter Jungnickels' excellent
+[^1]: Especially comments regarding the math. The graph theory
+ definitions in the paper are based on Dieter Jungnickel's
+ sublime
[Graphs, Networks and Algorithms](https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-32278-5).
- I didn't fully trust engineering reviews and had an actual
- professor in discrete mathematics review the math before we
- submitted the paper. I'll just take it that it was justified to
- add the basic math definitions and build everything up from
- scratch. I still stand by the math in the paper. \ No newline at end of file
+ I cannot recommend this work enough to anyone interested in
+ graph theory. The math in the paper has been reviewed before
+ submission by a professor that lectures discrete mathematics to
+ engineering students and additionally, because I wanted a second
+ opinion, a professor in pure mathematics (who had excellent
+ comments, that definitely improved the definitions). I'll take
+ the reviewer's notes as evidence that it was more than justified
+ to add the basic math definitions and build everything up from
+ scratch. I stand by the math in the paper. \ No newline at end of file