Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't think I ever heard people accuse our paper of not being rigorous enough, but more than happy to listen to specific problems with it: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359578461_Continuou...


I completely read the first half of it, hoping that everything would eventually make sense, that the pieces would fall into place, but that never happened. I only skimmed the second half and everything seems to just become more and more incoherent. There are some recognizable underlying themes but nothing of it makes really any sense. If I would have to guess, I would guess that ChatGPT generated that gibberish. For large section I could at least imagine that the ideas are just way over my head, especially since I have never heard anything about promise theory and did not read the references. But page 16 really convinced me, that it all is just nonsense - how on earth do we suddenly and out of nowhere end up with differentials, Fourier series, and Heisenberg's uncertainty relation? And while the paper superficially looks sophisticated and scientific with all the symbols and notation, there is no substance behind it. The symbols are really only used for providing short labels for all kinds of things but they are [essentially] never used to relate anythings, let alone to derive or prove something.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: