🚀 go-pugleaf

naylor@research.canon.oz.au (William Naylor) writes:

>It would be a very damning comment on the computer science theory 
>establishment if it eventually turns out that the Gismondi&Swart graph-iso
>paper has any merit, and yet is was not accepted for presentation at
>the major theory conferences (STOC, etc.).

Not necessarily.  You make it sound like there is some sinister plot
to suppress results like this.  In order for a paper claiming a
ground-breaking result (like ISOM in P) to be accepted for publication
it is insufficient to merely be correct.  It must (actually _should)
also be readily seen to be correct by an expert who reads it with
the intense skepticism that comes from reading too many faulty
claims in the past.  In my opinion, the Gismondi-Swart paper cannot
yet pass this test, though I eagerly await Mike Robson's revision.

>Will Naylor               net:  naylor@research.canon.oz.au

Brendan.