hehe

Another interesting show after Yau-perelman controversy. 现在fortnow 这个blog好象是马大的gasarch的在维护。 这个帖lz是John Kartz，马大 的一个年轻有为的做密码 的，现在是assistant prof. 转如正题，基本事实是这样，一个数学家，叫koblitz的，也不知道出名不出名，在 notice of AMS 上发了这样一篇文章，内容中暗示了密码学家不干事情，净发些小结果，没有原创性，中间好象还点了很多人的名字。 结果 就是２波人互掐，一拨估计是 做数学 说你们做密码 的 paper就是 不这么地，连个正经 rigorous 的证明都写不来，另一拨估计｀是做密码的说老子证明写 的比你数学家elegent. 做数学 的说你们那么多conference，不认真审稿，文章质量都很烂，做密码 的 说我们计算机发展快， 丫有钱愿意办这么多conference. 反正是吵成一锅粥了。 你可以 看blog中的评论， 有匿名 的，有署名 的，反正光署名的就有连 我都 知道的大牛。 教授们在网上掐架和在日月光华民工版的民工掐架差不多，有说理的，有骂人的，有看热闹的。区别 就是用 的｀词汇相当fancy, 我是 一边查字典一边看完的，真狠当时红宝书没有好好背，现在连人家骂街都看不懂。 http://weblog.fortnow.com/2007/08/koblitz-controversy-reaction.html#comments

I have my office, together with a bunch of theory people here, one of them is my peer mentor, actually is a senior phd student, a quit unbelievable fashioned iranian girl since usually a theory girl does not dress herself to much. I am working on a pretty interesting graph theoretic problem which Samir(a professor here) gave me a week ago. I got some progress during last boring weekend and told Samir. He told me some Duke guys just published a paper in ICDE07 with the same result. I checked their paper, and found almost the same result except that their proof is as boring and technical as any published paper but mine is as elegent but simple as any unpublishable exercise! Try to make you proof as complicated and unreadable as possible to get published:) (but make sure the proof is still correct!)