Plagiarism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain Kremmen said:
It's much easier explaining things to Mister when he's banned than when he isn't.
Click to expand...

Well Captain, It would appear that you might have erroneously hung Mister out to dry.

You apparently found, via a search, much of the same material that Mister posted here.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/...-equations-against-a-modified-dirac-equation/

Which appears to be the basis for the charge of plagiarism leveled against him and repeated by AN.

But according to Mister, the post you linked to IS also by him:

the link is my own work. The beginning briefly covers the (Higgs Mechanism which I admit is not my work, but not done by Tsao anyhow), and the latter part describes some langrangians, which is my work. I can also notice mistakes in there! lol But that was my work he linked to, and the work was demonstrated rewriting langrangians in terms of the Tsao Proper Mass.
Click to expand...

(I assume he is posting on that board as Mystery111, too bad we can't ask Mister to clarify this point)

And in that post he does give credit to Tsao.

So (and my reading of this could be wrong, Mister's posts can be somewhat difficult to follow logically) if this is true, then I think people owe him an apology.

Now as to the general case I don't think posting equations by themselves counts as either plagiarism or copywrite infringement.

Equations can't be copywrited, only the explanation surrounding them.

So if JUST the equations are copied from some other location, but NOT the explanation, there is no infringement.

Face it, when we write E=MC^2 we DON'T have to credit Einstein.
 
Last edited:
You've misunderstood, I think.
On that site, he posted the equations of Mr Chang, and credited him with the work. He attached his own comments to those equations. That was fine.

On this site, he posted the same equations, and with the same comments, but without any mention of Mr Chang. That was plagiarism.
He was posting someone else's ideas as his own.

As regards copyright, a separate consideration entirely:
In so far as an equation is a fact, it cannot be copyrighted,
but a line of reasoning can be.
Whether he was following the same line as Mister Chang, or one of his own, I am not qualified to say. Possibly it was a mixture of the two.

The main thing he is being accused of is plagiarism, not copyright infringement.
The other thing that they accuse him of is faulty reasoning.
Someone else will have to take that up with him.
Higher mathematics makes little sense to me.

I'm relieved this is not what he has been banned for.
I was simply trying to explain to him why some members have a problem with his posts.
He thinks that everyone on the Physics section is doing the same as he is,
but they aren't.

If you still disagree, perhaps JamesR could arbitrate on the matter.
 
Last edited:
I've looked at it and I don't see where it is plagiarism, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place.

You made the original charge so could you post the ACTUAL sections of his work, and the corresponding original source that you say he plagiarized?
 
I can't copy the maths, but compare these two.

This is how the post was started on the other site:
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/...-equations-against-a-modified-dirac-equation/

In light of the recent developments at CERN has led me to investigate the possibility of superluminal fermionic neutrino particles in a series of modified equations from the work of Tsao Chang, a leading scientist in his area of research. First of all, I wanted to write down the equations describing how mass enters and how the yukawa coupling determines different mass sizes. Then I wanted to take it further, derive a Langrangian from the modified Dirac Equation and write it in terms of a Higgs field and then finally working out the Eigenvalues for the modified approach.

The mass term is very important when speculating on the existence of a tachyonic fermion neutrino.

To give a particle mass, you must assume some field.......

and here:


I lay any work I've made as thought it is as such. I don't pass anything I've made up as the maintream. Atleast, doing so would be woo woo in my eyes.

To give a particle mass, you must assume some field........



He said himself that he was using someone else's equations.
But only in the post on the other site.

When I challenged him on it,
he simply said it was what everyone did.
Maybe he doesn't do a very good job of defending himself.
 
Last edited:
Copying equations though is not plagiarizing.
Only if one copies the verbiage and descriptions associated with them.
Or if one makes the specific claim that the equations are brand new to the science and that they came up with them.

It's not that he didn't defend himself well, you still have yet to show where, if he is Mystery111 as he appears to claim he is, that he plagiarized anything.

So I did a little research myself and found this:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1792595

So my question is: Is Mister = Mystery111 = Carstein?

Too bad we can't ask him.
 
Last edited:
I still disagree on your definition,
but I think he may well be all three people.
I wonder how many posts he posts a day between all his outlets?

Those posts look really good to me, especially on the other sites.
As MysteryIII he introduces the subject very professionally.
I don't know what the hell the posts mean,
but they look the business.

Every mathematician on here says the same thing.
1. That Mister copies stuff and posts it as his own.
2. That he patches stuff together from different sources.
3. That his understanding of maths is limited.

If I understood the stuff,
and I thought he was being unjustly criticised I would stick up for him.
Surely at least one of the mathematicians here would do the same.
 
Last edited:
Captain Kremmen said:
I still disagree on your definition,
Click to expand...

So if you see someone write E=MC^2 and not attribute this to Einstein, do you think they are plagiarizing?

I hope not.

but I think he may well be all three people.
I wonder how many posts he posts a day between all his outlets?

Those posts look really good to me, especially on the other sites.
As MysteryIII he introduces the subject very professionally.
I don't know what the hell the posts mean,
but they look the business.

Every mathematician on here says the same thing.
1. That Mister copies stuff and posts it as his own.
2. That he patches stuff together from different sources.
3. That his understanding of maths is limited.

If I understood the stuff,
and I thought he was being unjustly criticised I would stick up for him.
Click to expand...

Well the charge of plagiarism is pretty serious.
And I've yet to see proof that he has done so.
That of course assumes he is all three of those posters.

Surely at least one of the mathematicians here would do the same.
Click to expand...

Not if they didn't read the post where Mister claimed to be Mystery111.
 
adoucette said:
So if you see someone write E=MC^2 and not attribute this to Einstein, do you think they are plagiarizing?
Click to expand...


It is hard to think of a situation in which someone could pass off this equation as their own work, because it is so well known,
but if such an occasion occurred, and someone tried to pass the equation off as their own, then it would be plagiarism, sure.
 
adoucette said:
So if you see someone write E=MC^2 and not attribute this to Einstein, do you think they are plagiarizing?

I hope not.
Click to expand...
Of course not. But if a 7 year old claimed to understand special relativity and attempted to 'proof' they did by just copying and pasting equations from someone's work as if to say "Look, I must know special relativity, I can post equations from it!" then it would be dishonest and while not literally plagiarism it would certainly be a vehicle for that dishonesty.

adoucette said:
Well the charge of plagiarism is pretty serious.
And I've yet to see proof that he has done so.
Click to expand...
I can categorically state he has done it in the past.

When Reiku and I first crossed paths on PhysOrg forums years ago I corrected him on something and in his hissy fit he challenged me to a 'physics-off'. Rpenner provided 10 questions over varying levels of difficulty and we had 2 days to reply. I answered 4 or 5 of them and admitted those I hadn't a clue about (rather than time constraints). Reiku answered none in the time limit but then posted a lengthy, incorrect answer about one of them. It was then revealed the exact thing he'd posted could be found on someone else's personal website. When confronted with this he claimed he'd found some stuff he'd written years ago and forgot now he wasn't his own work. Firstly that implied he'd been learning Lie group symmetries in quantum field theory when he was something like 17 (it's something taught to Cambridge masters students!). Secondly it implied he didn't recognise something wasn't written by him. Thirdly he didn't realise the answer was wrong so obviously he hadn't learnt enough to see the errors in the material. As such no one believed him. So he is obviously not above it.

adoucette said:
Not if they didn't read the post where Mister claimed to be Mystery111.
Click to expand...
All of the people here or PhysForums (the two places he and I have crossed paths in a significant way) with formal education in relevant material and are employed in a research capacity in them have reached similar conclusions about Mister/Reiku as I. I happen to be a lot more forthcoming with my opinion of him as one of the few things which really pushes my buttons is intellectual dishonesty.

wlminex said:
. . .simple way to avoid plaigarism? . . . .always add op. cit.!!! to your posts
Click to expand...
If Mister could be honest about his level of understanding then he'd get along with everyone much better. I don't think anyone would appreciate me posting long essays about research into RNA mutations in viruses in the biology forum just because I can read Wiki pages on it. If I engaged in an honest discussion about RNA, so I could reasonably learn a bit of stuff given my present knowledge then hopefully people would be happy to help.

Tell me, would you like someone turning up at your job who knows nothing about what you do or the area in which you work and then telling you how your own job is done? I doubt it.
 
Certainly looks bad considering his history, but the question is still unresolved.

Is THIS a case of plagiarism or not?

Too bad we can't ask him if Mister = Mystery111 = Carstein?
 
adoucette said:
Certainly looks bad considering his history, but the question is still unresolved.

Is THIS a case of plagiarism or not?

Too bad we can't ask him if Mister = Mystery111 = Carstein?
Click to expand...

So you have accepted that he is a plagiarist.
Looks like all you want to do now is prove me wrong.

We must ask him to post something as Carstein and MysteryIII
Then we will know that he really is those people.
He may have forgotten that he wasn't them.

@Mister. (He will be reading all this)
Go and post something as MysteryIII,
and that will prove to Adoucette that you are not a plagiarist in THIS case.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
So you have accepted that he is a plagiarist.
Click to expand...

According to AN he has been caught doing it before.
Because of a long posting history on another forum with AN I tend to believe him just based on his word, but because we can't be sure Mister has seen these posts we can't yet determine if Mister has also plagiarized something on this board.

Looks like all you want to do now is prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

Not at all, I'm just interested in finding out the truth.
I presume if you were to find out you were wrong you would apologize for your mistake just as I presume that if it turns out that he was in fact plagiarizing that he would do so for committing the deed.

We must ask him to post something as Carstein and MysteryIII
Then we will know that he really is those people.
He may have forgotten that he wasn't them.

@Mister. (He will be reading all this)
Go and post something as MysteryIII,
and that will prove to Adoucette that you are not a plagiarist in THIS case.
Click to expand...

How do you know that he will read this?
 
adoucette said:
1. I presume if you are wrong you would apologize just as I presume that if it turns out that he was in fact plagiarizing that he would do so.



2. How do you know that he will read this?
Click to expand...

1. So. In what circumstances is an apology forthcoming from your good self?

2. Because this thread is about him.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
1. So. In what circumstances is an apology forthcoming from your good self?
Click to expand...

I don't believe I've posted anything that requires an apology, regardless of how this turns out.
I have suggested that you might have made an error and why, but I have not yet claimed that you have done so.

Indeed, I still don't know if Mister is Mystery111 is Carstein.

If he is, then it would appear that he hasn't plagiarized anything.
If not, then it would appear that he has.

2. Because this thread is about him.
Click to expand...

Probably, but not a certainty.

I tend to like certainty.
 
Well, I think I have proved that his post was plagiarism regardless of how it turns out.
We disagree about whether equations can be plagiarised..
I say that they can, you say not.

To take your example.
Could Einstein's famous equation be plagiarised?
Yes,a foolish attempt to make a claim that you had thought of the equation would be plagiarism.
That doesn't mean that you have to refer to Einstein every time you use it, because it is so well known you don't need to bother.


Added later.
Still no post from MysteryIII
 
Last edited:
Captain Kremmen said:
Well, I think I have proved that his post was plagiarism regardless of how it turns out.
Click to expand...

Nope because your claim is based on this next assumption:

Captain Kremmen said:
We disagree about whether equations can be plagiarised..
I say that they can, you say not.
Click to expand...

If you are claiming you discovered some important new concept then that is done via the EXPLANATION that the equations represent.

The explanation is what is copy-writable and could also be plagiarized. The equations themselves are no different than the list of ingredients in a recipe, and mean nothing without the explanation.

Which means if the words explaining those equations were generally copied from someone else's work, then he plagiarized, if he just used the equations and added his own unique explanations then he isn't plagiarizing anything.

It's this issue that remains unresolved.

Captain Kremmen said:
To take your example.
Could Einstein's famous equation be plagiarised?
Yes,a foolish attempt to make a claim that you had thought of the equation would be plagiarism.
That doesn't mean that you have to refer to Einstein every time you use it, because it is so well known you don't need to bother.
Click to expand...

Can't you see why that doesn't work?

Who decides when an equation no longer requires citation?
By your own definition all Mister would have to say is Tsao's work is famous and thus doesn't require citation.

You say, "Well I didn't know of it."
Mister says, "I can't help it if you are ignorant of this seminal work. People who understand the concepts I'm discussing are all aware of Tsao's work. Citing this would be like citing Einstein for E=MC2."
 
We are not going to agree.
Mainly because I am right and you are wrong.
We will have to wait till Mister comes back.
I can't spend all my time arguing with you.

My time is precious.
There may be other things for me to investigate elsewhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top