diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'content')
| -rw-r--r-- | content/en/blog/2021115-rejected.md | 16 |
1 files changed, 14 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/content/en/blog/2021115-rejected.md b/content/en/blog/2021115-rejected.md index 1bd7489..703154d 100644 --- a/content/en/blog/2021115-rejected.md +++ b/content/en/blog/2021115-rejected.md @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ This weekend we got word from the paper we submitted to JACM early surprised that we still hear of it after 3 years. So thanks to the reviewer for his/her time. The rejection was justified, and I got something useful out of it, despite a lot of the reviewer's comments -being disgracefully wrong. +being disgracefully wrong[^1]. I've written over 30 research papers in my first years at university, most went from first conception to a paper in less than a month. I had @@ -44,4 +44,16 @@ Direction is more important than speed. Cheers, -Dimitri
\ No newline at end of file +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. The reviewer, obviously an engineer, 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 + [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.
\ No newline at end of file |