Почему? Я бы предположил, что это очень не первый раз, когда христианин посвящает свою научную работу подобным образом. Ну, допустим, я с этим сталкивался не так часто, но я видел упоминания Ленина, Пленумов Партии, линии ЦК и прочее. Верующий человек - есть верующий человек, ничего особо забавного... Ну, не знаю... Вы же не тычете пальцем в того, кто, к примеру - крестится, напугавшись?
Not completely irrelevant. I bet the incentive to write and publish the paper in question would be diminished somewhat if the dedications were sneered at.
The sneers specifically at dedicating a bullshit paper to Jesus would be more effective. After all, it's like paying a contribution to one's own church with counterfeit money ;-)
While the sneers at a paper really solving P vs. NP would not be very effective, to say the least ;-) Who would be in a position to sneer? ;-)
Well, I am not a Christian, but if some trade journal sneered at religious people - I would consider it not just an incentive, but an hygienic imperative not to deal with said publication.
Nobody sneers at religious people, but at the laughable attempts to demonstrate their adherence to religion in inappropriate fora. What's next? Footnotes a la "By the way, hello to my <ethnic> brothers and sisters" in scientific publications?
When an unbiased opinion is sought, all potential causes of bias, including the motivational bias of the readers, must be avoided.
Conversely, textbook authors do not care (much) about biasing the opinion or the motivation of their readers - they are reading the textbook for their own benefit, not the author's.
I told you before that I would not do any business with a trade journal that sneers at religious people. May be I should have also mentioned that I do not give a flying shit about audience whose anti-christian bias prevents them from judging mathematical articles on merit.
You know, let me make an big, generic, cover-all-bases statement: I do not care.
There is only one criterea by which scientific articles should be judged.
I do not care about any other consideration. And, I do not care about feelings or thoughts or concerns or worries, both positive and negative, be they provoked, forced, encouraged or genuine - of anyone in regard to any other consideration.
I've understood that you don't care quite some time ago.
Please understand that as we're not engaging in a private correspondence, it is not my goal to persuade you personally (althought it would have been a nice side effect, the lack of such effect does not sadden me), but to provide ample basis for my point of view in case somebody else who reads this decides to consider the controversy, taking into account the fact that the people who review scientific articles are not all clones of arbat.
So you are saying that were you to peer-review that paper, you would have suggested to the author to remove the dedication, or otherwise somehow commented on it?
No, I'm saying that some reviewers who either share the author's adherences expressed in dedications, or are afraid of being accused of discrimination on the basis of a property denoted by the dedication, might omit some negative comments they would have made in case the same article had no such dedication.
The problem with the original paper is that it is wrong, not that it has a dedication.
Of course, if anything like this had been right, we would have been likely to have heard about it before publication. (How about those English tenses?)
А, сейчас попробую. Один вариант: сделать это не одним символом, а двумя: написать ≤, а потом перечеркнуть его. Скажем, так: a ≤/ b (код: a ≤<span style="position: relative; left: -0.5em;" >/</span> b). Тут смешная проблема, что после этого дела возникают лишние 0.5em (т.е. приблизительно полширины буквы). Moжно, конечно, сдвинуть не только перечёркивание, но и всё, что за ним: a ≤/ b, но тогда эта лишняя пустота возникает в тексте за формулой.
Другой вариант: использовать не html entities, а unicode. К сожалению, теоретически не у всех может быть подходящий шрифт. Получается что-то вроде a ≰ b, но пишется ужасно:
А кстати, вот ещё вариант: ≰ становится ≰ (я выделил символ перечёркивания). Однако, чтобы его было видно, нужны правильные шрифты. Значит, всё равно приходится обернуть это дело списком шрифтов, как в предыдущем варианте. Так что этот случай годится только для таких символов, которых хочется в перечёркнутом виде, а нету.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
;-) There should be a religious prohibition to dedicate incorrect papers to our (Lord, Prophet, Other; select one) ;-)
no subject
no subject
There should be a scientific culture of not publishing bullshit. If a paper is good, a dedication is OK, even a weird one ;-)
no subject
no subject
While the sneers at a paper really solving P vs. NP would not be very effective, to say the least ;-) Who would be in a position to sneer? ;-)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Conversely, textbook authors do not care (much) about biasing the opinion or the motivation of their readers - they are reading the textbook for their own benefit, not the author's.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
There is only one criterea by which scientific articles should be judged.
I do not care about any other consideration. And, I do not care about feelings or thoughts or concerns or worries, both positive and negative, be they provoked, forced, encouraged or genuine - of anyone in regard to any other consideration.
And I have no idea how to make it any more clear.
no subject
Please understand that as we're not engaging in a private correspondence, it is not my goal to persuade you personally (althought it would have been a nice side effect, the lack of such effect does not sadden me), but to provide ample basis for my point of view in case somebody else who reads this decides to consider the controversy, taking into account the fact that the people who review scientific articles are not all clones of
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The problem with the original paper is that it is wrong, not that it has a dedication.
Of course, if anything like this had been right, we would have been likely to have heard about it before publication. (How about those English tenses?)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
2 ⋅ 2 ≠ 4
no subject
no subject
Другой вариант: использовать не html entities, а unicode. К сожалению, теоретически не у всех может быть подходящий шрифт. Получается что-то вроде a ≰ b, но пишется ужасно:
<span style="font-family: Arial Unicode MS, Palatino Linotype, Code2000, Lucida Sans Unicode;" >a ≰ b</span>
Впрочем, этими крючками можно обернуть всю формулу (как в примере), так даже и красивее выйдет. Список шрифтов можно расширять или сужать по вкусу.
(Математические символы юникода можно найти, например, вот тут: [html] [pdf].)
no subject
no subject
no subject
По-правильному, надо использовать MathML, но его поддержка какая-то недостаточная.
no subject
no subject
это что - типа весеннее обострение?
no subject