Professors against Plagiarism in IRAN http://professorsagainstplagiarism.blogspot.com/

http://professorsagainstplagiarism.blogspot.com/
Senior officials in the Iranian government are suspected of plagiarizing
published scientific content for political gain.
Nature, the international weekly journal of science, reported last week that
its research unearthed even more plagiarism allegations against prominent
figures in Iran. The first person to be implicated more than a year ago was
Masumeh Ebtekar, the head of the Environmental Protection Organization under
President Khatami.
A few months ago, Nature tabbed Transport Minister Hamid Behbahani, who
supervised President Ahmadi-nejad's doctoral thesis, for plagiarism in a
paper he co-authored. Nature says the paper appeared based on three earlier
articles by three different authors. The journal Transport retracted the
paper in October, but the Iranian government has not investigated the
allegations.
Behbahani told the public he did not plagiarize and that only parts of the
article were identical to earlier work. He called the plagiarism allegations
a "media attack, far from fairness and integrity" and "an illegitimate
accusation."
The Majlis did, however, informally investigate Science Minister Kamran
Daneshjou and the four papers he co-authored. Daneshjou oversaw this year's
elections in his previous post of deputy interior minister. The Majlis
Science and Education Committee held an informal inquiry into the case and
dismissed it after Daneshjou's colleague and co-author, Majid Shahravi, took
responsibility for the content in the papers. Three of the four papers have
been retracted from publications. The fourth paper was published in an
Iranian journal.

Nature speculates that the frequent cases of plagiarism in Iran are partly
the result of poor fluency in English. Nature said the culture in Iran and
some other developing countries expects officials to have strong academic
credentials. That encourages resort to plagiarism to uphold this cultural
expectation and gain promotions.
Nature notes many of Iran's best scientists left Iran after the 1979 Islamic
revolution because universities were asked to eliminate Western influences
and staff. Iranian research improved and became more credible in the late
1990s with the help of President Mohammad Khatami who made academic
appointments based on merit, Nature said. It said research in Iran has gone
downhill since Ahmadi-nejad took power in 2005 because political influence
directed promotions within universities.

http://professorsagainstplagiarism.blogspot.com/

Biography of Prof. LOTFI A. ZADEH

Biography of Prof. LOTFI A. ZADEH

LOTFI ZADEH was born in Baku, Azerbaijan SSR, to a Russian Jewish mother (Fanya Koriman) who was a pediatrician, and an Iranian Azeri father from Ardabil who was a journalist on assignment from Iran.[1] However, at the age of ten, when Joseph Stalin introduced collectivization of farms throughout the Soviet Union, the Zadeh family moved to Iran, his father's homeland.

Zadeh grew up in Iran, and studied at Alborz High School. After high school, he sat for the national university exams and placed second in the entire country. In 1942, he graduated from the University of Tehran with a degree in electrical engineering (Fanni), and moved to the United States in 1944. He received an MS degree in electrical engineering from MIT in 1946, and a PhD in electrical engineering from Columbia University in 1949. [1]

Zadeh taught for ten years at Columbia University, was promoted to Full Professor in 1957, and has taught at the University of California, Berkeley since 1959. He published his seminal work on fuzzy sets in 1965 in which he detailed the mathematics of fuzzy set theory. In 1973 he proposed his theory of fuzzy logic.

Zadeh is noted to be "quick to shrug off nationalism, insisting there are much deeper issues in life", where he himself is quoted stating: "The question really isn't whether I'm American, Russian, Iranian, Azarbaijani, or anything else. I've been shaped by all these people and cultures and I feel quite comfortable among all of them."[2]

Zadeh also notes in the same interview from which the above quote is taken: "Obstinacy and tenacity. Not being afraid to get embroiled in controversy. That's very much a Turkish tradition. That's part of my character, too. I can be very stubborn. That's probably been beneficial for the development of Fuzzy Logic."[3]

Zadeh is married to Fay Zadeh and has two children, Stella Zadeh and Norman Zadeh.

Awards

In 1994 he was inducted as a Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery. He was awarded the IEEE Medal of Honor in 1995 "For pioneering development of fuzzy logic and its many diverse applications."

Zadeh has a long list of achievements, including

* In 1993 Azarbaijan bestowed him an honorary Professorship from the Azarbaijan State Oil Academy.

but the awards Zadeh has received since 2003, include:

* Outstanding Contribution Award, Web Intelligence Consortium (WIC), Halifax, Canada, 2003.
* Wall of Fame, Heinz Nixdorf MuseumsForum (HNF), Paderborn, Germany, 2004.
* Civitate Honoris Causa, Budapest Tech Polytechnical Institution, Budapest, Hungary; Sept. 4, 2004.
* Doctor Honoris Causa, Muroran Institute of Technology, Muroran, Japan; Oct. 29, 2004.
* Doctor Honoris Causa, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China; Nov. 9, 2004.
* V. Kaufmann Prize and Gold Medal, International Association for Fuzzy-Set Management and Economy (SIGEF), Barcelona, Spain, Nov. 15, 2004.
* Foreign member of the Polish Academy of Sciences, 2005.
* Nicolaus Copernicus Medal of the Polish Academy of Sciences, 2005.
* J. Keith Brimacombe IPMM Award in recognition of his development of fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic, 2005.
* Doctor Honoris Causa, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; Jan. 29, 2007.
* Richard E. Bellman Control Heritage Award
* Doctor Honoris Causa, Ryerson University, Toronto , Ontario, Canada; June 10 2008.

Zadeh's most recent recognition comes from The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. Lotfi Zadeh receives the 2009 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Electrical Engineering for inventing and developing the field of “fuzzy logic,” in which a system applies a quantitative assessment to inherently ambiguous ideas, thus providing a new paradigm to improve artificial intelligence and automated control systems.
Work

Because of the importance of the relaxation of Aristotelian logic, which opens up applicability of rational methods to the majority of practical situations without dichotomous truth values, Zadeh is one of the most referenced authors in the fields of applied mathematics and computer science, but – as noted below – his contributions are not limited to fuzzy sets and systems.
Fuzzy sets and systems

Aristotle introduced the laws of thought, which consisted of three fundamental laws:

* Principle of identity
* Law of the excluded middle
* Law of contradiction.

The law of the excluded middle states that for all propositions p, either p or ~p must be true, there being no middle true proposition between them. This should not be confused with the principle of bivalence, which states that either p must be true or false.

Jan Łukasiewicz was the first to propose a systematic alternative to the bi-valued logic of Aristotle and described the 3-valued logic, with the third value being Possible. Zadeh, in his theory of fuzzy sets, proposed using a membership function (with a range covering the interval [0,1]) operating on the domain of all possible values. He proposed new operations for the calculus of logic and showed that fuzzy logic was a generalisation of classical and Boolean logic. He also proposed fuzzy numbers as a special case of fuzzy sets, as well as the corresponding rules for consistent mathematical operations (fuzzy arithmetic).
Other contributions

Lotfi Zadeh is also credited, along with John R. Ragazzini, in 1952, with having pioneered the development of the z-transform method in discrete time signal processing and analysis. These methods are now standard in digital signal processing, digital control, and other discrete-time systems used in industry and research.

Zadeh's latest work includes computing with words and perceptions. His recent papers include From Search Engines to Question-Answering Systems—The Role of Fuzzy Logic, Progress in Informatics, No. 1, 1-3, 2005; and Toward a Generalized Theory of Uncertainty (GTU)—An Outline, Information Sciences, Elsevier, Vol. 172, 1-40, 2005.
Publications

Zadeh wrote several articles. A selection:

* 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control. 1965; 8: 338–353.
* 1965. Fuzzy sets and systems. In: Fox J, editor. System Theory. Brooklyn, NY: Polytechnic Press, 1965: 29–39.
* 1972. A fuzzy-set-theoretical interpretation of linguistic hedges. Journal of Cybernetics 1972; 2: 4–34.
* 1973. Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems and decision processes. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1973; 3: 28–44.
* 1974. Fuzzy logic and its application to approximate reasoning. In: Information Processing 74, Proc. IFIP Congr. 1974 (3), pp. 591–594.
* 1975. Fuzzy logic and approximate reasoning. Synthese, 1975; 30: 407–428.
* 1975. Calculus of fuzzy restrictions. In: Zadeh LA, Fu KS, Tanaka K, Shimura M, editors. Fuzzy Sets and their Applications to Cognitive and Decision Processes. New York: Academic Press, 1975: 1–39.
* 1975. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning, I-III, Information Sciences 8 (1975) 199–251, 301–357; 9 (1976) 43–80.

About Lotfi Asker Zadeh

* Fuzzy Sets and Systems. The main journal of the field which contains many contributions by its founder.
* Zadeh : From computing with numbers to computing with words — from manipulation of measurements to manipulation of perceptions in International Journal of Applied Math and Computer Science, pp. 307–324, vol. 12, no. 3, 2002.
* Fay Zadeh. "My Life and Travels with the Father of Fuzzy Logic". 1998, TSI Press, Albuquerque, NM.

Professors Against Plagiarism

Professors Against Plagiarism : A professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College who was propelled into the national spotlight when a noose was found on her office door last fall has been found to have plagiarized the work of a former colleague and two former students, the college has announced.


Madonna G. Constantine

The college, in statements to the faculty and the news media, said an 18-month investigation into charges against the professor, Madonna G. Constantine, had determined there were “numerous instances in which she used others’ work without attribution in papers she published in academic journals over the past five years.”

Susan H. Fuhrman, the college’s president, and Thomas James, the provost, informed the faculty of the case, and said that Dr. Constantine had the right to appeal.

The college said Dr. Constantine was being penalized, but did not say what the penalty was. A spokeswoman for the college, Marcia Horowitz, said Teachers College did not have set rules governing plagiarism or how it should be punished.

Dr. Constantine, in an e-mail message to faculty and students on Wednesday, called the investigation “biased and flawed,” and said it was part of a “conspiracy and witch hunt by certain current and former members of the Teachers College community.”

“I am left to wonder whether a white faculty member would have been treated in such a publicly disrespectful and disparaging manner,” she wrote.

She added, “I believe that nothing that has happened to me this year is coincidental, particularly when I reflect upon the hate crime I experienced last semester involving a noose on my office door. As one of only two tenured black women full professors at Teachers College, it pains me to conclude that I have been specifically and systematically targeted.”

Dr. Constantine’s lawyer, Paul J. Giacomo Jr., who made Dr. Constantine’s e-mail message available, said in an interview that his client was the one whose work had been plagiarized, and that she would appeal to the college’s faculty advisory committee.

Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman, said the newly imposed sanctions on the professor would have little or no influence on what he called “an ongoing investigation” into the hanging of the noose which had been referred last fall to the hates crime unit.

Ms. Horowitz said the college initiated the investigation more than a year before the noose incident. “It had no bearing on the way the investigation was conducted, its findings or the sanctions imposed,” she said. The sanctions were first reported by The Columbia Spectator, the student newspaper.

Dr. Constantine, a professor of psychology and education who specializes in the study of how race and racial prejudice can affect clinical and educational dynamics, came to Teachers College in 1998 as an associate professor and earned tenure in 2001.

In 2006, the chairman of Dr. Constantine’s department, Suniya S. Luthar, passed along to administrators complaints that Dr. Constantine had unfairly used portions of writings by a junior colleague, Christine Yeh, as well as a number of students, Dr. Luthar said in an interview. Teachers College eventually asked Hughes Hubbard & Reed, a law firm, to investigate.

Dr. Yeh, who is now at the University of San Francisco, said in an interview Wednesday that she had left Teachers College in part because of her differences with Dr. Constantine. She called the college’s determination that there had been plagiarism “an important first step.”

“I’m really hopeful other people will come forward now,” she said. “When the initial charges were made, there were many students involved who didn’t feel they could follow up. They were too scared, and they were afraid of retribution.”

Dr. Yeh said that some of her work that had been copied concerned “indigenous healing,” or alternative methods, like acupuncture and Santeria, of dealing with medical and spiritual ailments. She said she has specialized in that subject for years.

2010-01-15

See now ONLINE your submitted papers in WSEAS

See now ONLINE your submitted papers in WSEAS
by clicking in this link:  WSEAS

Check now the Submitted Papers in WSEAS Conferences very easily

Check now the Papers in WSEAS Conferences very easily

click here--> WSEAS

 

 

UNCERTAINTY and INFORMATION (discussion continues)

Dear Professor Zadeh,

Please allow me to raise a few questions in regard to your view on the
concept of uncertainty.

    If I understand you correctly, you would like us to recognize that, 'in
large measure'(?), there are different theories of different kinds of
uncertainty. Assuming that your argument can not be refuted, I wonder (a)
how the uncertainties the adherents of rough set/system theory (Zdzislaw
Pawlak c.s.) and grey set/system theory (Julong Deng c.s.) are talking about
differ from each other and from the kind of uncertainty you have been
concerned with, (b) how, from a fuzzy (or crisp) logic point of view, the
reasoning of respectively your Polish and Chinese counterparts is to be
assessed, (c) how probability theory fits in with all this, and (d) whether
vagueness is just another word for fuzziness, as much as imprecision is
synonymous with inexactness.

    'The concept of uncertainty may be equated to the concept of information
granularity', you maintain. Is this 'key assertion' meaning exactly what
George Klir says in Uncertainty and Information: Foundations of Generalized
Information Theory (2006): 'Information is anything capable of reducing
uncertainty'? If uncertainty is indeed directly related to information
(inversely or otherwise), then we have got ourselves in a difficult
situation: between the devil and the deep blue sea. For there is also a long
controversy over the correct definition and ontological status of
information, a word the origin of which - it tends to be forgotten - can be
found in the Latin verb 'in-formare', and a word that may prompt the
philosopher, or the theologian, to ask: 'Who has been the
in-former/designer?'.

I (and presumably other people as well) look forward to receiving your
gracious response to these perhaps silly questions.

Respectfully yours,

Hans Kuijper
Joliotplaats 5
3069 JJ Rotterdam
The Nethelands
j[underscore]kuijper[at]orange[dot]nl

 

 

---

To me, this recent thought-provoking message and Prof. Zadeh's insightful message, taken together, bring to mind something at the "meta" level:  That there are really two aims (or functions) of learning and knowledge, i.e., to understand how things work, and to facilitate (and enhance) survival and life.  

In other words: the quest for knowledge, and the quest for (and application of) wisdom.

This thought might seem overly "philosophical" here, but I think it relates well to the present topic, as follows:   

The "stuff" of the universe itself (nature and its dynamics) is highly interconnected and, in some senses, largely "seamless".  We humans try to choose the "best" ways to define and distinguish between our various terms and concepts, picking where one ends and the other begins in each one's correspondence to the universe itself and relationship to the other -- often with overlaps, imprecision, softness, and so forth.  (See Steven Pinker's "The Stuff of Thought".)  So, why would it be any different in the case of how we define and scope our concepts and terms for the various uncertainties and imprecisions we discover or (when we speak) also generate?  Here, I'm not saying, of course, that all is equal to all else.  Instead, I'm just saying that it may be true that there are as many sorts of such things (i.e., types and senses of uncertainty, imprecision, vagueness, and etc. etc. etc.) as we want to create terms for, or as there are situations in the universe?

The same, of course, would hold with respect to matters having to do with wisdom ... how to live well.

If so, then the number of distinct terms/concepts we choose, in order to help us in the two quests mentioned above, will have more to do with their helpfulness and practicality and, perhaps, less to do with how many different sorts of these things actually exist, in reality, in the universe, which is a number that we may not ever know anyhow.

That said, the differentiations that have been mentioned so far are very helpful, and practical.  Yet, if the above is correct, then we should probably not conclude that there is any "right" and precise answer to the question.  Instead, the aims are those of practicality, clear thinking, and clear communication.  As with other matters, absolute answers are "blowin' in the wind".  

Happy New Year to All, 

Jeff

                      
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart H CIV SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC Rubin, 56340" <stuart.rubin@
To: bisc-group@
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2010 9:14:22 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: RE: [bisc-group] Uncertainty vs Imprecision

********************************************************************* Berkeley Initiative in Soft Computing (BISC) *********************************************************************
I would like to expound upon Prof. Zadeh's insightful comments. He writes, among related gems, "A basic misconception is that there is just one kind of uncertainty--probabilistic uncertainty." This raises the question for me at least as to just how many types of uncertainty there are. I would expect that this number might be countably infinite and thus cannot be bounded above. This was suggested to me by certain results in the military study of "deception". I believe this is true because while concepts such as granularity tend to be for the most part domain general, there can be no finite number of ways to limit granular characterizations for an arbitrary domain. Equivalently, the fact that the truth value of an arbitrary statement is undecidable can only mean that the number or types of uncertainty is not finite because otherwise a contradiction would arise. Fast forwarding a bit, I suggest that if there were only a finite number of types of uncertainty, or equivalently only a finite number of possible granular characterizations for an arbitrary domain, then logics and predicate rules would be sufficient to capture all of the uncertainty inherent to the natural world. But, in as much as this cannot be, we are led by the hand to case-based characterizations and thus if one wishes to solve the CW and CW-related problems, one will never find the solution in any logic or first-order calculii. This can only be interpreted to mean that without learning(indemic to case-based methods and some others of course) one cannot solve the CW problem. I would like to conclude with the note that learning by definition must incorporate all of its derivatives (i.e., learning how to learn). This means that any formal definition for intelligence differs from that proposed by Turing. Indeed, intelligence is not based so much on accumulated knowledge, but on "learning how to learn". I see all of this as flowing from Prof. Zadeh's commentary. Comments are welcome. v/r, Stuart Rubin, Ph.D. SSC-PAC Tel.               (619) 553-3554         (619) 553-3554 Fx. (619) 553-1130 E. stuart.rubin@navy.mil -----Original Message----- From: Lotfi A. Zadeh [mailto:zadeh@eecs.berkeley.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 6:56 PM To: bisc-group@lists.eecs.berkeley.edu Subject: [bisc-group] Uncertainty vs Imprecision Dear Members of the BISC Group. The spirited discussion of the concept of uncertainty within the BISC Group points to a need for differentiation between uncertainty and imprecision. I discussed this issue and its relation to probability and truth in my message of April 27, 2009. I should like to return to the discussion with an improved example. For purposes of differentiation, it is convenient to use an example which involves ethnicity. Assume that Robert's father is German and his mother's parents were German and French. Thus, Robert is 3/4 German and 1/4 French. Suppose that someone asks me: What is Robert's ethnicity. If my answer is: Robert is German, my answer is imprecise or, equivalently, partially true. More specifically, the truth value of my answer is 3/4. No uncertainty is involved. Next, assume that Robert is either German or French, and that I am uncertain about his ethnicity. Based on whatever information I have, my perception of the likelihood that Robert is German is 3/4. In this case, 3/4 is my subjective probability that Robert is German. No partiality of truth is involved. A proposition is a carrier of information. In the above example, call it the Robert example, the information carried by the proposition "Robert is German" is precise but not entirely correct, that is, is partially true. When imprecision is related to partiality of truth with no uncertainty involved, it will be referred to as strict imprecision, or s-imprecision for short. As was noted already, there is no connection between s-imprecision and uncertainty. In more general settings, there may be a connection. The key to an understanding of this connection is the concept of information granulation (Zadeh 1997 ). Informally, a granule, A, in a space U is a clump of elements of U which are drawn together by indistinguishability, equivalence, similarity or proximity. The principal modes of information granularity are possibilistic and probabilistic. Intervals and fuzzy intervals are possibilistic granules. A Gaussian probability distribution is an instance of a probabilistic granule. The concept of nondeterminism is a special case of the concept of information granularity. A granular variable is a variable which takes granules as values. A singular variable is a variable which takes singletons as values. For example, Unemployment is a granular variable if its values are high, medium, low, etc. and it is a singular variable if its values are 7.8%, 9.3%, etc. A proposition is granular if it is a carrier of granular information, and it is singular if it is a carrier of singular information. For example, "Vera is middle-aged" is granular, while "Vera is 43 is singular." These concepts provide the basis for the key assertion: Uncertainty = Information Granularity. To define information granularity more precisely what is needed the concept of a generalized assignment statement or, equivalently, the concept of a generalized constraint (Zadeh 1986 , 1999 ). More specifically,a generalized constraint is an expression of the form X isr R, where X is the constrained variable, R is the constraining relation and r is an indexical variable whose values define how R constrains X. The principal constraints are possibilistic, probabilistic and veristic (verity = truth). No uncertainty is associated with veristic constraints. A key point is that there are many different kinds of generalized constraints and hence there are many different kinds of uncertainty. The principal modes of uncertainty are possibilistic, probabilistic and their combinations, e.g. possibilistic-probabilistic and probabilistic-possibilistic. The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence, for example, is a theory of probabilistic-possibilistic uncertainty. Mixed modes of uncertainty are instances of second-order uncertainty, that is, uncertainty about uncertainty. An imprecise probability is an instance of second-order uncertainty. What is widely unrecognized is that in most realistic settings probabilities are imprecise. A basic misconception is that there is just one kind of uncertainty--probabilistic uncertainty. What is important to recognize is that, in large measure, different theories of uncertainty are not different theories about the same kind of uncertainty. Rather, they are theories of different kinds of uncertainty. In the Generalized Theory of Uncertainty (GTU) (Zadeh 2006 ) a unifying thesis is: Information=Generalized Constraint. In summary, the concept of uncertainty may be equated to the concept of information granularity. Imprecision is unrelated to uncertainty if it is strict. Imprecision is related to uncertainty if it is not strict, that is, if it involves granular information. A final point. In my message of April 27, 2009, I pointed out that the Bayesian definition of probability as the degree of belief fails to differentiate between imprecision, partiality of truth and uncertainty. This is a serious flaw. Comments are welcome. Regards to all and best wishes for the New Year. Lotfi --

 

Lotfi A. Zadeh Professor in the Graduate School Director, Berkeley Initiative in Soft Computing (BISC) Address: 729 Soda Hall #1776 Computer Science Division Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California Berkeley, CA 94720-1776 Tel.(office):               (510) 642-4959         (510) 642-4959 Fax (office): (510) 642-1712 Tel.(home):               (510) 526-2569         (510) 526-2569 Fax (home): (510) 526-2433 URL: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~zadeh/ BISC Homepage URLs URL: http://zadeh.cs.berkeley.edu/

2010-01-14

Dear BISC Members and Dear Prof. Lotfi Zadeh,

Dear BISC Members and Dear Prof. Lotfi Zadeh,

Instead of http://wseas-athens-wseas.blogspot.com/

We have now the New Blog for the Papers that are under review

http://wseasconferences.blogspot.com

So, you can see the Abstract and the Title of your papers in this Web Site

http://wseasconferences.blogspot.com

Also, the papers in the WSEAS Transactions (Journals) can be found at
http://wseas-cscc.blogspot.com/

Some other useful information can be also found at

http://e-wseas.livejournal.com/

http://womac.wordpress.com

http://wseas2007.wordpress.com

and of course

http://wseasonline.blogspot.com

Many Thanks

Michael

A liar and an internet troll. A REPLY TO "ANONYMOUS" Email Sender or Commentor ("Commentor", no "commentors"),

From our blog http://wseasonline.blogspot.com/ we learn:

 

http://wseasonline.blogspot.com/2009/12/reply-to-previous-anonymous-commentor.html

 

skip to main | skip to sidebar

WSEAS online

December 24, 2009

A liar and an internet troll. A REPLY TO "ANONYMOUS" Email Sender or Commentor ("Commentor", no "commentors"),

INTRODUCTION
Dear WSEAS friends and members,
It has come to our attention that there is some "anonymous" individual who sends emails to various WSEAS committees, prompting the committee members to resign their position, anonymously accusing WSEAS using outrageous and disgusting lies.
This "anonymous" person has so far been falsely identifying himself as:

1.  A former employee of the WSEAS (???)
2.  A student who's been published by the WSEAS (!!!)
3.  A president of WSEAS in his country. Most of you, you know these emails in 2006.
4.  A receiver of WSEAS spam email, supposedly for keynote speeches - when, from www.wseas.org/reports,    we only feature keynote speakers in very few, major conferences
5.  A WSEAS author who published a draft paper in WSEAS without registration (this is very funny)
6. With the fake name "Sana" he says that our Books and Proceedings are not in ISI, but they are, Check them here
http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/conf_proceedings_citation_index?parentKey=432529

Our response to this internet impostor (= Organizer of a Chain of Conferences outside the WSEAS) is as follows:

All those things that you are saying are nothing but figments of your imagination. There is absolutely no way that you would have  a former employee of the WSEAS nor a student who's been published by the WSEAS

nor a president of WSEAS in your country  nor a receiver of WSEAS spam email (supposedly for keynote speeches - when, from www.wseas.org/reports)

nor would your draft paper have been published considering that you did not register
nor ...

dear "Conference Organizer" (outside WSEAS of course)
 You are a liar and an internet troll!


Obviously, from your email IP, which was sent yesterday to all our email addresses,
we know who you are and we know that you are also running a conference organizing business,

You'd be better off taking care of your own conferences instead.
We have never denied a "withdrawal" request for a paper, like you claim, and we have never published such a paper. This case has already been taken to our lawyers, since we know your IP and that you are a conference organizer too. Unfortunately, what you are doing harms you as well, because with those "anonymous" posts and emails of yours you are not only degrading our conferences, but all conferences in general. Therefore, you are not only defaming us, but also the whole conference world.
Naturally, WSEAS has nothing to fear.
You are the same anonymous person who every now and then shows up as:
1.  a former employee of the WSEAS

2.  a student who's been published by the WSEAS (!!!)

3.  president of WSEAS in his country. Most of you, you know these emails in 2006.

4.  a receiver of WSEAS spam email, supposedly for keynote speeches - when, from www.wseas.org/reports,    we only feature keynote speakers in very few, major conferences --check it
in www.wseas.org/reports

5.  a WSEAS author who published a draft paper in WSEAS without registration (this is very funny)

6. With the fake name "Sana" he says that our Books and Proceedings are not in ISI, but they are, Check them here

http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/conf_proceedings_citation_index?parentKey=432529
Really all the WSEAS Books and Proceedings are in ISI. The Journals are not though! We have never claimed
that our journals were in ISI.

Finally, we are also informed that you send the same defamation emails and posts to IEEE, ACM, IASTED etc. You will gain nothing with all those childish business of yours. On the contrary, you will soon find
yourself answering to your country's justice system.
Stop, now, otherwise you will see your NAME here.



P.S. 1  With the fake name "Sana" he says that our Books are not in ISI, but they are, Check them here

http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/conf_proceedings_citation_index?parentKey=432529









P.S.2 We have finished the present text when we received the following forward email from.Professor Cornelia Aida Bulucea
Electrical Machines and Environment Engineering Department
Faculty of Engineering in Electromechanics and Environment
University of Craiova
ROMANIA


 This "anonymous" individual makes attacks also to IEEE !!!!
What is the background of these email attacks?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aida Bulucea" <abulucea@gmail.com>
To: "Prof. Nikos Mastorakis    " <mastor@wseas.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 2:09 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Many University Web Pages consider that many IEEE
Conferences are garbage.


> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Gheorghe Manolea <ghmanolea@gmail.com>
> Date: 2009/12/24
> Subject: Fwd: Fw: Many University Web Pages consider that many IEEE
> Conferences are garbage.
> To: Aida Bulucea <abulucea@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Werner Wourner <200920092009a@gmail.com>
> Date: 2009/12/24
> Subject: Fw: Many University Web Pages consider that many IEEE Conferences
> are garbage.
> To: fukuyo@yamaguchi-u.ac.jp, h.a.rakhshani@gmail.com,
> furqan786@ymail.com,
> fuzzy_nightingale@yahoo.com
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: bowlleravner <bowlleravner@gmail.com>
> To: ftedesco@deis.unical.it, eng_monaeim@yahoo.com,
> eng_nader1981@hotmail.com, eng_nader1981@yahoo.com, eng_rashid@ieee.org,
> engabbas@hotmail.com, engalaa60@yahoo.com, engineer_barbod@yahoo.com,
> engineerbsaravanan@gmail.com, engineering.production@yahoo.com
> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:31:17 +0200
> Subject: Fwd: NEW ! Many University Web Pages consider that many IEEE
> Conferences are garbage.
> forward this please to your colleagues, it must make the round of the
> world
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From:
> XXXXXX@ece.ncsu.edu>
>
> <XXXXXX@ece.ncsu.edu>
>>
> Date: 2009/12/23
> Subject: NEW ! Many University Web Pages consider that many IEEE
> Conferences
> are garbage.
> To: bowlleravner@gmail.com
>
>
> *Many University Web Pages consider that many IEEE Conferences are
> garbage.
> Some of them consider that even in the IEEE Journals the review is quite
> ridiculous and has only to do with your public relations in IEEE and its
> conferences or if you have put as co-author
> some important editor of IEEE*
>
> See these link and examine the word: *unrefereed*
>
> http://www.ece.ncsu.edu/imaging/Publications/unrefereed.html
>
> http://sekmen-cs.tnstate.edu/sekmen/sekmen/ConferencePapersNonRefereed.html
>
> http://www.utdallas.edu/~rmt042000/publications.htm
>
> http://www.math.duke.edu/~das/cv/unrefpub.html
>
> http://web.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~rdv/publications.html
>
> http://www.yawlfoundation.org/arthur/publications/index.php
>
> http://softbase.uwaterloo.ca/~ddbms/projects/multimedia/publications.html
>
> http://npal.ucsd.edu/publications/index.htm
>
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~awm22/publications/index.html
>
>
>
> From http://netdriver.blogspot.com
> Forward this message to your mailing lists with reference to us
> http://netdriver.blogspot.com/2009/12/many-universities-consider-that-many.html
>
> See also
>
> http://iaria-highsci.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> --
> Telefon  0744771432
> Fax 0251534880
> Adresa corespondenta :CP 609, OP 6 , Craiova

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive

• ▼ 2009 (1)
  • ▼ December (1)
    • A liar and an internet troll. A REPLY TO "ANONYMO...

 

If you receive similar emails, forward them to us: wseas-team@wseas.org Please, forward also the headers of these emails with the IPs

2010-01-13

NEWS for UNCERTAINTY. The discussion of our BISC today

Dear Professor Deng Julong,

It was a great honour to meet you at the IEEE International Conference on Grey Systems recently organised in Nanjing. Though I Iearned a lot from the speakers at the conference whose papers have been exemplarily published in the two-volume Proceedings, I'm still somewhat confused about the nature of the theory you are the celebrated founding father of, and - remarkably - the world outside the PRC and Taiwan is unfamiliar with.
What I am particularly unable to think clearly about is how greyness differs from fuzziness, roughness, vagueness, and randomness. Metaphorically speaking, I would like to know whether these five states of being, or qualities, are the fingers and thumb of a shaky hand called 'uncertainty'. If they are, this hand may be worthy of further, perhaps philosophical investigation. In practical terms, when (meaning: in what kind of situations) is the theory of grey, fuzzy, rough, vague, or random systems, more suitable, and best to apply?
In case you like to refer me to the fuzziness, roughness, vagueness, and randomness (probability) community for clarification on what their respective theoretical and practical positions are, I should be grateful if you could comment on the following thought experiment:
Think of a standard size (A4) piece of black paper. Every second a white dot, roughly 1 millimetre in diameter, appears on the paper randomly. How long will it take for, say, five reasonable onlookers to agree that the colour of the paper has turned grey? If 'black' stands for unknown, and 'white' stands for known, how helpful can grey systems theory be in this situation?
Grey systems are usually said to consist of partly known and partly unknown elements. However, if - contrary to reductionist belief - the parts cannot be known or understood unless the whole (the system), including its 'unknown elements', is taken into account (a conclusion complexity scientists and mereologists seem to have come to), then I wonder how firm the foundation of grey systems theory really is.
I take the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to some experts in the various fields of uncertainty, feeling confident that they also look forward to reading your reply.



Respectfully yours,



Hans Kuijper, M.A.
Joliotplaats 5
3069 JJ Rotterdam
The Netherlands

j[underscore]kuijper[at]orange[dot]nl

---

Dear BISC

I would like to expound upon Prof. Zadeh's insightful comments. He
writes, among related gems, "A basic misconception is that there is just
one kind of uncertainty--probabilistic uncertainty." This raises the
question for me at least as to just how many types of uncertainty there
are. I would expect that this number might be countably infinite and
thus cannot be bounded above. This was suggested to me by certain
results in the military study of "deception". I believe this is true
because while concepts such as granularity tend to be for the most part
domain general, there can be no finite number of ways to limit granular
characterizations for an arbitrary domain. Equivalently, the fact that
the truth value of an arbitrary statement is undecidable can only mean
that the number or types of uncertainty is not finite because otherwise
a contradiction would arise. Fast forwarding a bit, I suggest that if
there were only a finite number of types of uncertainty, or equivalently
only a finite number of possible granular characterizations for an
arbitrary domain, then logics and predicate rules would be sufficient to
capture all of the uncertainty inherent to the natural world. But, in as
much as this cannot be, we are led by the hand to case-based
characterizations and thus if one wishes to solve the CW and CW-related
problems, one will never find the solution in any logic or first-order
calculii. This can only be interpreted to mean that without
learning(indemic to case-based methods and some others of course) one
cannot solve the CW problem. I would like to conclude with the note that
learning by definition must incorporate all of its derivatives (i.e.,
learning how to learn). This means that any formal definition for
intelligence differs from that proposed by Turing. Indeed, intelligence
is not based so much on accumulated knowledge, but on "learning how to
learn". I see all of this as flowing from Prof. Zadeh's commentary.
Comments are welcome.

v/r,


Stuart Rubin, Ph.D.

SSC-PAC

Tel.               (619) 553-3554         (619) 553-3554

Fx. (619) 553-1130

E. stuart.rubin@****

---

Dear Professor Zadeh, Bisc group,



It may be that probabilistic methods and fuzzy methods are complementary, because they are suited to different types of variability :

* probabilistic methods deal with uncertainty in repeated experiments, where the event of interest is typically very precisely defined e.g. the probability of a physical system attaining a given temperature range, or to observe a given class of data in a future sample from a statistical distribution.

* fuzzy logic applies to imprecise but useful definitions, where the clause of a logical statement is typically defined linguistically, e.g. hot vs. cold, or perceptually, e.g. ethinical origin.


Confusion can arise when the the source of variation is not clearly linked to the choise of methodology.

With kind regards and good wishes for the coming year,

Paulo Lisboa

---

Dear Prof.Zadeh and BISC members,

I am writing this email with deep humility and profound gratitude.

Time has come for me to say goodbye. I will fly back to Beijing this Saturday after one-year visiting in BISC, UC Berkeley.
Even I stay here as a visiting scholar for only one year, this special exprience will be cherished in my memory for my lifetime.

I would like to thank Prof.Zadeh for giving me such a great opportunity to visit BISC, as well as the guidance and insight you endowed us in BISC roundtable discussion and in email and the new ideas and new theories you contributed to the scientific community.

I would like to take this chance to thank all BISC members as your ideas also inspired me a lot either in face-to-face disccusion or in email.
Now, we are in a great family whose name is BISC. Whenever you come to Beijing for meeting or for vocation, please contact me. I will be very glad to meet you, show you around in Beijing and welcome you to give a talk in my University(Beijing Jiaotong University).

Let us wish our beloved Prof. Zadeh health, Soft computing thrive and Friendship forever!


Dewang

Beijing Jiaotong Universiy

Tel:86-10-51684219
Email: dwchen@****

---