Official Retraction of JSH "Publication"

[junoexpress]

Below is an excerpt from math review data base.


Dear Professor Brenneman:

Many thanks for the information you have supplied concerning the
Southwest J. Pure Appl. Math.
Mathematical Reviews has corrected its journal record for this
publication to reflect the fact that the journal has been discontinued.
In addition, MR will take steps to indicate in the listing MR2052975
that this article has been retracted.
MR greatly appreciates your concern for the accuracy of its database.
Sincere regards,
-Kevin Clancey



Dr. Kevin F. Clancey e-mail: ***@ams.org
Executive Editor tel: [phone]
Mathematical Reviews fax: [phone]
416 Fourth Street P.O. Box 8604 www.ams.org/mr-database
Ann Arbor, MI 48107


Another error of JSH's corrected.

[Larry Lard]

Post by junoexpress
Below is an excerpt from math review data base.
Many thanks for the information you have supplied concerning the
Southwest J. Pure Appl. Math.
Mathematical Reviews has corrected its journal record for this
publication to reflect the fact that the journal has been discontinued.
In addition, MR will take steps to indicate in the listing MR2052975
that this article has been retracted.
MR greatly appreciates your concern for the accuracy of its database.
Sincere regards,
-Kevin Clancey
Executive Editor tel: [phone]
Mathematical Reviews fax: [phone]
416 Fourth Street P.O. Box 8604 www.ams.org/mr-database
Ann Arbor, MI 48107
Another error of JSH's corrected.

For real? That's gonna make him mad*

* in the American sense.

[junoexpress]

Post by Larry Lard

Post by junoexpress
Another error of JSH's corrected.

For real? That's gonna make him mad*

4real, and he's *already* mad

Post by Larry Lard
* in the American sense.

in the psychological sense, and while I sympathize with his plight, I
do think it is wrong for something to remain on the record when it is
known to be wrong.

Post by Larry Lard
--
Larry Lard

Matt

[Chumley]

Post by junoexpress

Post by Larry Lard

Post by junoexpress
Another error of JSH's corrected.

For real? That's gonna make him mad*

4real, and he's *already* mad

Post by Larry Lard
* in the American sense.

in the psychological sense, and while I sympathize with his plight, I
do think it is wrong for something to remain on the record when it is
known to be wrong.

Post by Larry Lard
--
Larry Lard

Matt

definnition :
re·tract

To take back; disavow: refused to retract the statement.
v. intr.

To take something back or disavow it.
To draw back.


So, JSH withdrew his own paper, and it had NOTHING to do with anyone at
sci.math.

JSH = lying troll

[Arturo Magidin]

Post by Chumley
re·tract
To take back; disavow: refused to retract the statement.
v. intr.
To take something back or disavow it.
To draw back.
So, JSH withdrew his own paper, and it had NOTHING to do with anyone at
sci.math.

James most certainly did not withdraw his own paper. In fact, many of
us have pointed out that the journal's use of "withdrawn" to describe
what occurred is misleading, at best.

[junoexpress]

Post by Arturo Magidin

Post by Chumley
re·tract
To take back; disavow: refused to retract the statement.
v. intr.
To take something back or disavow it.
To draw back.
So, JSH withdrew his own paper, and it had NOTHING to do with anyone at
sci.math.

James most certainly did not withdraw his own paper. In fact, many of
us have pointed out that the journal's use of "withdrawn" to describe
what occurred is misleading, at best.

Indeed
And continuing in the reality check department...

The *fact* is that James never "disavowed" the paper in *any* manner.
To this day, he maintains that the only thing "wrong" that happened was
that the editor was coerced into withdrawing the paper. He has never
stated that the paper did not stand on its own merits, nor has he ever
acknowledged any type of major error in the paper that would vitiate
its main conclusions.

M

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <***@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com> "junoexpress" <***@gmail.com> writes:
...

Post by junoexpress
The *fact* is that James never "disavowed" the paper in *any* manner.
To this day, he maintains that the only thing "wrong" that happened was
that the editor was coerced into withdrawing the paper. He has never
stated that the paper did not stand on its own merits, nor has he ever
acknowledged any type of major error in the paper that would vitiate
its main conclusions.

That is not entirely correct. He has admitted errors in the paper, and
acknowledged them in this newsgroup. I think he did even do so before
the formal publication. He did not think them major, the only problem
was that due to the errors the final conclusions were false.

[Randy Poe]

Post by Chumley

Post by junoexpress

Post by Larry Lard

Post by junoexpress
Another error of JSH's corrected.

For real? That's gonna make him mad*

4real, and he's *already* mad

Post by Larry Lard
* in the American sense.

in the psychological sense, and while I sympathize with his plight, I
do think it is wrong for something to remain on the record when it is
known to be wrong.

Post by Larry Lard
--
Larry Lard

Matt

re·tract
To take back; disavow: refused to retract the statement.
v. intr.
To take something back or disavow it.
To draw back.
So, JSH withdrew his own paper, and it had NOTHING to do with anyone at
sci.math.

No, I believe that the editors pulled the paper, not JSH.
What it had to do with sci.math was that at least one of
the people here wrote a comment letter pointing out
counterexamples to the claims in the paper. The proper
thing for the journal to do would have been to print
that letter along with the article. Though the article
shouldn't have passed peer review, somehow it did
or peer review never occurred. The way they handled
it was bad behavior on their part.

- Randy

[Mo Green]

Post by Chumley

Post by junoexpress

Post by Larry Lard

Post by junoexpress
Another error of JSH's corrected.

For real? That's gonna make him mad*

4real, and he's *already* mad

Post by Larry Lard
* in the American sense.

in the psychological sense, and while I sympathize with his plight, I
do think it is wrong for something to remain on the record when it is
known to be wrong.

Post by Larry Lard
--
Larry Lard

Matt

re·tract
To take back; disavow: refused to retract the statement.
v. intr.
To take something back or disavow it.
To draw back.
So, JSH withdrew his own paper, and it had NOTHING to do with anyone at
sci.math.

No, I believe that the editors pulled the paper, not JSH.
What it had to do with sci.math was that at least one of
the people here wrote a comment letter pointing out
counterexamples to the claims in the paper. The proper
thing for the journal to do would have been to print
that letter along with the article. Though the article
shouldn't have passed peer review, somehow it did
or peer review never occurred. The way they handled
it was bad behavior on their part.

- Randy

the journal only had one or two issues, then it folded, not enough interest
or support

[Erik Naggum]

Post by junoexpress
Below is an excerpt from math review data base.

Hm. The wording appears to indicate that the corrections have already
been made, but a simple check right now reveals no change from the last
time I checked.

Post by junoexpress
Many thanks for the information you have supplied concerning the
Southwest J. Pure Appl. Math.
Mathematical Reviews has corrected its journal record for this
publication to reflect the fact that the journal has been
discontinued.

http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/search/journaldoc.html?cn=Southwest_J_Pure_Appl_Math

still says "Status: Current".

Post by junoexpress
In addition, MR will take steps to indicate in the listing MR2052975
that this article has been retracted.

http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/search/publdoc.html?pg1=IID&r=1&s1=733893
still says only "{There will be no review of this item.}", although such
an understatement is funny enough by itself.

Post by junoexpress
Another error of JSH's corrected.

I'll check back on Monday, in case there are some publication delays I
am not aware of.

Erik Naggum

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Erik Naggum

Post by junoexpress
Below is an excerpt from math review data base.

Hm. The wording appears to indicate that the corrections have already
been made, but a simple check right now reveals no change from the last
time I checked.

Post by junoexpress
Many thanks for the information you have supplied concerning the
Southwest J. Pure Appl. Math.
Mathematical Reviews has corrected its journal record for this
publication to reflect the fact that the journal has been
discontinued.

http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/search/journaldoc.html?cn=Southwest_J_Pure_Appl_Math
still says "Status: Current".

Post by junoexpress
In addition, MR will take steps to indicate in the listing MR2052975
that this article has been retracted.

http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/search/publdoc.html?pg1=IID&r=1&s1=733893
still says only "{There will be no review of this item.}", although such
an understatement is funny enough by itself.

Post by junoexpress
Another error of JSH's corrected.

I'll check back on Monday, in case there are some publication delays I
am not aware of.
Erik Naggum

I find it just of mild interest that the publication has been in there
at all, as remember people, I am the one who informed Mathematical
Reviews of the situation YEARS ago.

They sent me an email for author information, which included a phone
number so I called them up and explained what happened.

So I, a person who likes to get on the phone and talk to people, called
the number in the email sent to me requesting author information, and
talked to someone at Mathematical Reviews and explained what happened
YEARS AGO.


James Harris

[q***@gmail.com]

Post by j***@gmail.com
So I, a person who likes to get on the phone and talk to people, called
the number in the email sent to me requesting author information, and
talked to someone at Mathematical Reviews and explained what happened
YEARS AGO.

You explained what a moron you are and how f** up at math you are?

Anyhow, in your favor, I will say that is probably the one sane thing
you've done,

Q

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by j***@gmail.com
So I, a person who likes to get on the phone and talk to people, called
the number in the email sent to me requesting author information, and
talked to someone at Mathematical Reviews and explained what happened
YEARS AGO.

You explained what a moron you are and how f** up at math you are?
Anyhow, in your favor, I will say that is probably the one sane thing
you've done,
Q

You people are rabid. You foam at the mouth when I bring up cool
details.

So sorry, truth is that I am the person who promptly informed
Mathematical Reviews when they contacted me about the publication as
they needed author information.

Why that is a reason to go ballistic in reply is one of those sci.math
mysteries.

But I guess it makes sense to you people. But I say there is something
wrong with it.

Like, why would anyone get so upset over that? So I called them up and
had a chit-chat?

So what?


James Harris

[Charles]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by q***@gmail.com

Post by j***@gmail.com
So I, a person who likes to get on the phone and talk to people, called
the number in the email sent to me requesting author information, and
talked to someone at Mathematical Reviews and explained what happened
YEARS AGO.

You explained what a moron you are and how f** up at math you are?
Anyhow, in your favor, I will say that is probably the one sane thing
you've done,
Q

You people are rabid. You foam at the mouth when I bring up cool
details.
So sorry, truth is that I am the person who promptly informed
Mathematical Reviews when they contacted me about the publication as
they needed author information.
Why that is a reason to go ballistic in reply is one of those sci.math
mysteries.
But I guess it makes sense to you people. But I say there is something
wrong with it.
Like, why would anyone get so upset over that? So I called them up and
had a chit-chat?
So what?

you told them that sci.math posters did not like your paper, and that it
needs to be withdrawn?

[Erik Naggum]

Post by Erik Naggum
I'll check back on Monday, in case there are some publication delays
I am not aware of.

As promised: The entry for SWJPAM has changed and now says

Last Issue: 2004, no. 1
Status: No longer indexed

with only the EMIS URL, i.e., without the Cameron URL.

No change on the erroneously published paper therein.

Perhaps Mathematical Reviews should be encouraged to remove MR2052975
altogether?

Erik Naggum

[Jesse F. Hughes]

Post by Erik Naggum
As promised: The entry for SWJPAM has changed and now says
Last Issue: 2004, no. 1
Status: No longer indexed
with only the EMIS URL, i.e., without the Cameron URL.
No change on the erroneously published paper therein.
Perhaps Mathematical Reviews should be encouraged to remove MR2052975
altogether?

Why? That seems as dubious as SWJPAM's behavior in this case.