|
|
|
|
|
|
by catgary
1956 days ago
|
|
|
Look at the comments: > The paper is amazingly bad. None of the authors are mathematicians as far as I can see. I think the word “new” appears 50+ times in the paper. Looks like they updated the paper to include your observation from last time about the Gauss continued fraction without mentioning the source (the authors admit here they read your blog: http://www.ramanujanmachine.com/idea/some-well-known-results...). Classy! Just some light plagiarism/academic misconduct! |
|
|