CoCalc Public Fileswww / 129-05 / final_papers / grades.txt
Author: William A. Stein
1Mauro_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
9
10Steven 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.
15
16William Fithian:
17   Very nice.
18  Not too deep, but a noice choice of topics; follows through and
19  very clear.  Good examples.
21
22
23Francis 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.
32
33Alison Miller:
34  Almost nothing there.  I don't know what to do.
36
37
38Nizameddin Ordulu:
39  Very nicely systematic.
40  Clear
41  Complete
42  Many typos and confusing notation
43  No real examples
45
46Corina 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.
52
53
54Anatoly Preygel:
55  Huge paper; proves a very hard theorem completely.  wow.
57
58
59Emily 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
67
68
69Gary Sivek:
70  Good motivation.
71  On page 1: "the free abelian subgroup"  (meaningless!)
72  Nice applications.
74
75
76Steven Sivek:
77  Very nice discussion of Bernoulli polynomials.
78  Clear.
79  Nice complexity analyssis and really felt reasonably
80  deep and original.
82
83Kaloyan Slavov:
84  Solid and competent.   He clearly totally understands it.
85  Not really that "original" or deep, but very clean.
87
88Gregory Valiant:
89  Really good examples, though; well researched and honest.
91
92Yan 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.