3 ms·

> present in the literature for a long time: You're the second person to link the exact same paper I did in my first response. > To your original point, the t

> present in the literature for a long time: You're the second person to link the exact same paper I did in my first response. > To your original point, the title of this paper is only using terms ("paramorphisms", "recursive", and "program synthesis") that are decidedly not novel. They italicize paramorphism in the abstract. We all very well know that italics means novel usage. So again: let's drop the charade that everything is above board here.

trealira 2y ago
> They italicize paramorphism in the abstract. We all very well know that italics means novel usage. Or, they're writing for an audience that isn't necessarily familiar with paramorphisms and other morphisms, but still is familiar with functional programming.
Twisol 2y ago
> You're the second person to link the exact same paper I did in my first response. Yes; it sounds like you're suggesting they should be defining these concepts themselves instead of saying somebody else did them. But that would be academic dishonesty. So you must be alluding to something else. > We all very well know that italics means novel usage. You say that as though expecting everyone to agree. I do not. I personally use italics because several people I have spoken with, including my advisor, feel that boldface is shouty. Underline is rarely used for a similar reason. Italic font is the the only available form of typographic \emph{asis}; it is used (if sparingly) for key terms and ideas that the reader's attention should be drawn to, which include novel ideas, but can be much more than that.
gergo_barany 2y ago
> let's drop the charade that everything is above board here. OK. Since you're opposed to merely alluding to things (your italics, which I find funny), could you please state explicitly the misconduct you are alleging?

3 ms·

> present in the literature for a long time: You're the second person to link the exact same paper I did in my first response. > To your original point, the t

by almostgotcaught 2y ago

trealira 2y ago
> They italicize paramorphism in the abstract. We all very well know that italics means novel usage. Or, they're writing for an audience that isn't necessarily familiar with paramorphisms and other morphisms, but still is familiar with functional programming.
Twisol 2y ago
> You're the second person to link the exact same paper I did in my first response. Yes; it sounds like you're suggesting they should be defining these concepts themselves instead of saying somebody else did them. But that would be academic dishonesty. So you must be alluding to something else. > We all very well know that italics means novel usage. You say that as though expecting everyone to agree. I do not. I personally use italics because several people I have spoken with, including my advisor, feel that boldface is shouty. Underline is rarely used for a similar reason. Italic font is the the only available form of typographic \emph{asis}; it is used (if sparingly) for key terms and ideas that the reader's attention should be drawn to, which include novel ideas, but can be much more than that.
gergo_barany 2y ago
> let's drop the charade that everything is above board here. OK. Since you're opposed to merely alluding to things (your italics, which I find funny), could you please state explicitly the misconduct you are alleging?