On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:06:36 -0600, Tanner, John J.
wrote:
>Some of you might be curious about the "Ajees et al debacle" that Jacob
mentioned in his message. Here are two links:
>
>Nature Brief Communication that questioned the validity of one of Murthy's
structures:
>
>http://www.nature.com/na
Dear Felix
I agree - to address this Ash Buckle and colleagues have set up TARDIS
(http://tardis.edu.au/experiment/view/) and built the associated tools for
relatively painless deposition of data for registered users. As well as making
the data available to others we find that this is also a gr
In mathematics, when one is making a claim of solving the longstanding
mathematical problem, it is a tradition that his colleagues mathematician will
take care to check his solution. This solution MUST stood up to the scrutiny of
the world's expert. As an example see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
It seems that at least some of the primary authors, were starting PhD students.
For Ajees, as far as i know, he was given the mtz as soon as he joined the lab,
told that they have this data for a while, and asked to see
if the new software would do it. Not difficult to imagine.
A.
==
I assume
Tanner, John J. wrote:
Some of you might be curious about the "Ajees et al debacle" that Jacob
mentioned in his message. Here are two links:
Nature Brief Communication that questioned the validity of one of Murthy's
structures:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7154/full/nature0610
Some of you might be curious about the "Ajees et al debacle" that Jacob
mentioned in his message. Here are two links:
Nature Brief Communication that questioned the validity of one of Murthy's
structures:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7154/full/nature06102.html
Murthy's rebuttal
