diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | content/en/blog/2021115-rejected.md | 25 |
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 |