Re: My LP Formulation of the TSP: Conclusions

In article <1175174009.499980.223400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<moustapha.diaby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...But, we have been here before, and I don't want to start going in
circles again.

The one area in which you have not gone in circles but have made actual
progress is in understanding your error in asserting that (2.13) is
redundant.

Previously, you insisted that "everything was in your paper"; that you had
produced an absolutely watertight mathematical proof; that Moews and Hofman
were idiots as far as mathematical programming goes because they insisted
that (2.13) was not redundant; etc., etc., etc.

Now, of course, you realize that you were totally wrong and that Moews and
Hofman were right. But, you are too proud to admit it. This goes beyond
name-calling and stubbornness. This is outright academic dishonesty. You
would not have realized your error if it were not for the efforts of Moews
and Hofman---even when the error was shoved repeatedly in your face, you
refused to look at it, until I forced it not only in your face but down
your throat. Yet you do not breathe a word of acknowledgment in your paper.

At the very least, you should add the following to your paper: "I am
grateful to David Moews and Radoslaw Hofman for pointing out an error
in a previous version of this paper, in which it was incorrectly stated
that (2.13) is redundant. Hofman in particular produced an explicit
counterexample to this incorrect claiim."
--
Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu
The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will
never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from
the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
.

Relevant Pages