CoCalc Public Fileswww / 129-05 / final_papers / grades.txtOpen in CoCalc with one click!
Author: William A. Stein
1
Mauro_Braunstein:
2
3
Sloppy but interesting. Numerous typos, but nothing that bad.
4
Skipped many details, but that's OK. Not enough about connections
5
and open problems and misleading last sentence. No bibliography.
6
Nothing about how to actually compute fundamental unit.
7
8
Grade: 78%
9
10
Steven Byrnes:
11
Nice paper, but one gets the sense he really doesn't have a feeling
12
at all for how the algorithm actually works. There's not a single
13
example.
14
Grade: 93%
15
16
William Fithian:
17
Very nice.
18
Not too deep, but a noice choice of topics; follows through and
19
very clear. Good examples.
20
Grade: 93%
21
22
23
Francis Kelly:
24
Awkward wording in last paragraph. Awkward typesetting. Catchy
25
intro and good choice of topic. No overview of contents or hint as
26
to upcoming structure of paper.
27
* Very frustrating to read.
28
* Not well researched.
29
* Ugly weird notation.
30
* No examples.
31
GRADE: 80%
32
33
Alison Miller:
34
Almost nothing there. I don't know what to do.
35
Grade: 75%?
36
37
38
Nizameddin Ordulu:
39
Very nicely systematic.
40
Clear
41
Complete
42
Many typos and confusing notation
43
No real examples
44
Grade: 89%
45
46
Corina Patrascu:
47
Seems like she just copied some stuff.
48
But she did a great job copying, and I learned something.
49
Reminds me of the "learn something if you don't know much already."
50
Annoying lack of examples or connection with real world. Too abstract.
51
Grade: 89%
52
53
54
Anatoly Preygel:
55
Huge paper; proves a very hard theorem completely. wow.
56
Grade: 99%
57
58
59
Emily Riehl:
60
61
Very very well written up and clean. Could probably be published.
62
I found no typos, and the writing is clear. I really like
63
the clean coherence of the paper overall. But it didn't push
64
or really have anything super interesting or original in it.
65
66
Grade: 91%
67
68
69
Gary Sivek:
70
Good motivation.
71
On page 1: "the free abelian subgroup" (meaningless!)
72
Nice applications.
73
Grade: 90%
74
75
76
Steven Sivek:
77
Very nice discussion of Bernoulli polynomials.
78
Clear.
79
Nice complexity analyssis and really felt reasonably
80
deep and original.
81
Grade: 95%
82
83
Kaloyan Slavov:
84
Solid and competent. He clearly totally understands it.
85
Not really that "original" or deep, but very clean.
86
Grade: 93%
87
88
Gregory Valiant:
89
Really good examples, though; well researched and honest.
90
Grade: 95%
91
92
Yan Zhang:
93
Awkward phrasing. Typos (e.g., "texst" in theorem 2).
94
I couldn't understand the math on page 1, since the
95
index form is defined in a very confusing way.
96
Very good and interesting choice of problem.
97
What is n in the proof of prop 2? (anything -- but unclear.)
98
"Sp" --> "So".
99
In alternative proof of prop 2, you can't use MAGMA, since
100
you're making a claim for general x,y!
101
In thm 8, f and g have to be over Z_{(p)} or the mod-p condition doesn't
102
make sense.
103
Word "nonic" ??? What's that?
104
105
It was well researched, I learned much, and someone could find this
106
paper *very* useful when doing research.
107
I can't give it higher because of typos and lack of clarity.
108
Grade: 92%
109
110
111