|
|
|
|
|
|
by epistasis
729 days ago
|
|
|
> but your work depends on that wrong work, so your work is probably wrong No, absolutely not, that's pure fallacy. There might be some small subset of citations that work like a mathematical proof, but how many of these 4500 citations could you find that operate that way? |
|
|
And even then, you're just weakening the result, not throwing it out entirely: instead of a proof of X that cites a proof of Y, you have a proof that Y implies X.