Can you be a co-author of my paper “a polynomial time algorithm for Hamilton cycle” ?
The paper and a program in VC++ see:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323723344_A_Polynomial_time_Algorithm_for_Hamilton_Cycle_with_maximum_Degree_3_newest_revised_of_March_2018
I studied this problem for a lot of years, I am very sure I am correct.
Some experts (referees and editor in chiefs) like to judge a paper by pre-assumption, not by careful reading, thinking and understanding. “you cannot solve such a great problem, so you have to be wrong”, if a referee reviews a paper based on such a pre-assumption, there is no way for the author.
Or, they said: the paper’s English expression is not good, so cannot follow.
Why they cannot use their brain to think deeply, to enter my train of thoughts, to discuss with me, to let me explain? Logically, my paper can be understood if you carefully read and think.
Just was rejected by a great reviewer. The reason is: this is a great problem, requires “extraordinary insights and cogent” and my paper “lacks this”.
Why the great reviewer does not pay his attention on the correctness of my algorithm, but on the nonsense “extraordinary insights and cogent”?
I can tell him that my extraordinary insight and cogent is:
There are two ways to get a Hamilton cycle in exponential time: a full permutation of n vertices; or, chose n edges from all k edges, check all possible combinations. The main problem is: how to avoid checking all combinations of n edges from all edges. My algorithm can avoid this. I do not have to consider all possible combinations of destroying edges, but for each destroying edge (with a main segment), an additional main segment only have to repeat one time. For all the paper, one only needs to understand this.
Anyway, my English is bad, I need a co-author who is strong on both English paper writing and algorithm.
Thank you very much!
Sincerely yours,
Lizhi Du
read