Martin Michael Musatov wrote: > If there is something I am doing wrong correct it or tell me how I > can correct it. If you cannot do this then simply accept my work as > part of this body of work:
Several things: 1. Stop top-posting. See end of message. 2. Please format your Usenet messages correctly. 3. Trim replies as well (most sci.math'ers seem to have problems with this... *sigh*)
Now, about your actual work. What is there to say? You don't even make an argument, at least as far as I or anyone else can see. There's no presentation of theory. BURT (a recent poster/crank/troll/whatever you want to call him) at least has an argument, even if it is completely and utterly fallacious.
And it's not Markov, it's Markov chain models--better known as things that can create random text that sounds plausible, cf. Scigen. An example of such text:
Many computational biologists would agree that, had it not been for trainable theory, the visualization of IPv7 might never have occurred. In fact, few physicists would disagree with the investigation of rasterization, which embodies the intuitive principles of software engineering. In our research we propose a novel methodology for the exploration of randomized algorithms (Fat), which we use to disprove that IPv7 and write-ahead logging are largely incompatible [17].
As nonsensical as that paragraph is, what Mariano was trying to say is that such text makes more sense than your paper.
A: Because it breaks the flow of conversation. Q: Why should I not top-post? A: Posting replies above the original Q: What is top-posting?
-- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
