原题：John lott 给曹怀东发的信,指责曹-朱抄袭
Quoting John lott :
Dear Huai-Dong,I wrote to you a week ago about an issue concerning your paperwithZhu. So far I have not received a response. Bruce and I viewthis asa serious matter. If we do not hear from you or Xi-ping Zhu byMonday,July 31, then we will assume that you do not intend to respond. Yours truly,John On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, John lott wrote:Dear Huai-Dong,Thank you for sending the copy of your paper. I havenot had time to read all of it yet, but am puzzled aboutthe following point.In the introduction it is written "We would like topoint out that our proof of the singularity structure theorem Theorem 7.1.1 is different from that of Perelman in two aspects:
1
we avoid using his crucial estimate in Claim 2 in Section 12.1 of [103];
2
we give a new approach to extendthelimit backward in time to an ancient solution. These differences are due to the difficulties inunderstanding Perelman's arguments at these points."
In so writing, it is implied that you are providing anoriginal alternative argument to deal with Perelman'sClaim 2. In fact, the alternative argument presented on pages400-402 is essentially the same as the one inour "Notes on Perelman's Paper", which was first posted on ourwebsite
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/research/ricciflow/perelman.html
in June of 2003.
This part of the Notes was not changedin later versions. The February 2004 version, and somesubsequent versions, can be seen on the Wayback Machine at
http://web.archive.org/web/*/
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/research/ricciflow/perelman.html
The only mention of our Notes in your paper seems to be thesentence in the introduction "We remark that there have alsoIn fact, the alternative argument presented on pages 400-402 is essentially the same as the one in our "Notes on Perelman's Paper",Furthermore, pages 400-402 of your paper reproduce entire passages from our notes,
曹怀东朱熹平照抄k-l的段落和论证?
appeared several sets of notes on Perelman's work, including theone written by B. Kleiner and J. Lott [78], which cover part ofthe materials that are needed for the geometrization program."
In particular, the alternative argument for Claim 2 ispresented as in your paper as original work, and is notattributed to Bruce and me.Furthermore, pages 400-402 of your paper reproduce entirepassages from our notes, with minor modifications. Attachedare files c.dvi and c.pdf with a side-by-side comparison. Theleft hand column is from the June 2003 version of our notes.The right hand column is from your paper. The material inboldface was copied, again without proper attribution.
Nosimilar phrases appear in Perelman's paper.I am quite disturbed by this and await your explanation.
Yours truly,
John
评论 (0)