Oh, hardly. This is nothing like good, in the sense of "successful forgery", let alone "really, really good". Did you write the program? At a distance of 10 fe

Oh, hardly. This is nothing like good, in the sense of "successful forgery", let alone "really, really good". Did you write the program? At a distance of 10 feet, the document the program produces seems to nail the form and appearance of a math paper, probably because its template is a real paper. The formulas exhibited are or might be well-formed, but even at 5 feet away, it's clear that you've never see expressions that use so many obscure LaTeX glyphs. But try to read it, and it's immediately clear that no two sentences in a row even make use the same terms, and that every single sentence is sheer gibberish. The program is quite good at generating fake-math terminology, and knows more than a bit about naming conventions (e.g. coming up with "Perelman" as an adjective). But if, for example, this definition passes muster with you: > Definition 5.1. Let u_{l,V} be a Noetherian algebra. A homomorphism is a homomorphism if it is elliptic. then I wouldn't want to read your thesis either. Addendum: A for effort :) but F for the hype.