Hadmut Danisch wrote: > - He didn't find any single mistake. He just says that everything is > already known and taken from literature. certainly possible - if he didn't know (or deliberately ignored) that it had been written in 1988 :) How much of it is *still* new or at least hard to find in the literature? how much of it would be known *today* out of hand by someone who was familiar with the state of the art? If the university had instructed him to take a look at your work in that context, he may well not have found anything new or novel in there - because your work had since been duplicated, and after 16 years I would expect it to have been duplicated several times. If he had been instructed to find pre-1987 published work that duplicated yours, that would be different - but I would assume the university neglected that direction while instructing him.
> Maybe it's a minority writing false expertises. But it's a majority > accepting that. We have the same problem with expert witnesses in court here in the uk - after a while, prosecutors learn which experts can be relied on to give the answer they want rather than admit it is a matter of opinion and either case could be correct - such experts get a lot more work from the prosecution for their "unbiassed" opinions than those which gave an "unbiassed" opinion the prosecution didn't like (it isn't unknown for the prosecution to approach three or four experts and take the most favourable return to court) > So my doubt is not so much about that someone found the magic way to > factorize. It's about someone intenionally selling snake-oil or > backdoors and other's keeping their mouth shut and tolerate this as > they do it here. no, it isn't. it is about someone deliberately choosing to concentrate on the worst aspects of a 16 year old dissertation (almost certainly, that it is 16 years out of date) and ignoring the context. I am sure if I paid 100 experts to evaluate *anything* I could find at least one I liked the resulting report from. I am not too surprised either - for the reasons I have detailed above. I know it is hard to have fought this way though the legal system to find the university has tried to throw money at the problem to make it go away - but it happens, and I can only assume you will eventually prove it in court. what you have here is a legal problem with some individuals, that their employer has chosen to back against a student, and in doing so bent any or all rules it could to win. This says little about the individual who wrote the new examination and more about your opponents in the university's legal team. BTW is there any way you can find out how many "experts" were asked to evaluate your work before they found one whose answer they liked? --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
