Vladimir Bondarenko science forum Guru
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 601

Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:22 pm Post subject:
Vladimir Bondarenko  Refereed Publication # 1  International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation  1995  Status: Accepted: Dr Vilmar Trevisan: Poster Session Chair  ISSAC'95



Received: from SMTP by EXPLORER (Mercury 1.13); Fri, 16 Jun 95
17:42:52 +0300
Returnpath: issac95@mat.ufrgs.br
Received: from spider.cris.crimea.ua by expl.cris.crimea.ua
(Mercury 1.13) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Jun 95 17:41:59 +0300
Received: from mat.ufrgs.br (euler.mat.ufrgs.br [143.54.24.1])
by spider.cris.crimea.ua (8.6.10/8.6.10.1) with SMTP
id RAA17996 for SVA@expl.cris.crimea.ua ; Fri, 16
Jun 1995 17:38:13 +0400
Received: by mat.ufrgs.br (4.1/941007)
id AA04164; Fri, 16 Jun 95 10:39:04030
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 10:39:04030
From: issac95@mat.ufrgs.br (ISSAC 95)
MessageId: 9506161339.AA04164@mat.ufrgs.br
To: SVA@expl.cris.crimea.ua
Subject: poster at ISSAC'95
Cc: issac95@mat.ufrgs.br
XPMFLAGS: 33554560
Dear Colleague,
I am pleased to inform you that your poster submission for the
ISSAC'95 has been accepted for presentation.
Enclosed you will find comments from the referees. I ask that
you carefully consider them for preparing your presentation.
By midJune you will receive information on the schedule and
poster format.
Best regards,
Vilmar Trevisan
Poster Session Chair  ISSAC'95

Referee 1.
The author seems to have a heuristic which is able to solve
multiple integrals with an arbitrary number of variables.
Although no theoretical substance is evidenced by the abstract,
I recommend that the poster be accepted.
Referee 2.
In the revision the author has made clear what has actually been
accomplished, thus eliminating my original objections.
Referee 3.
In the previous refereeing,
we recommended the following three for revision.
(i) stating explicitly the derived formulas
(ii) emphasizing the motivation for considering these particular
functions
(iii) explaining the subproblems where the author needed CAS
showing what features of a CAS one needs.
For (i) and (iii), the revised paper is much improved, and
for (ii), examples are chosen for a certain demonstration of
his nonalgorithmic/heuristic approach to find exact and easily
computable expressions for definite multiple integrations.
Thus, the goal of the paper becomes clear.
In this time,
I am not sure the correctness of his formulations (1),(2)
and ability/effectivity of his proposing approach for
mathematical study supported by Computer Algebra System.
There are uncertain points in his explanation of
his "general" approach.
Moreover, there is no description on correctness/precision on
evaluation of the sums with floating arithmetics.
However, it is very interesting and valuable
to discuss on ability/effectivity of such an approach as
"computer aided mathematical research".
In this point, it seems nice to give the author an opportunity
to present his ideas in more details and
discuss with mathematicians/experts on computational mathematics.
Referee 4.
The English of the paper should be improved, especially the use
of articles.
What I wrote in my previous referee about the extraordinary way
of emphasizing should have been taken seriously. The author should
use just one way of emphasizing {\em } for example. What we have
now is really disturbing and it makes the paper difficult to read.
Motivation: We still do not know where the formulas are coming
from.(!!) It would be necessary to consider a formula of the
considered type from the literature which others tried to proof.
I mean integrals like the Mehta integral (see I.G. MacDonald,
Some conjectures of root systems, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 13 (1982)
pp. 9881007).
Title:
I would suggest to use
Computer Algebra System Aided evaluation of some definite nfold
integrals with undetermined n
Keywords:
Keep just the only one
definite multiple integral
The others are either irrelevant or make no sense.
Now I am going to consider the paper paragraph by paragraph.
1. Sentence 1 replace "defined" by "given".
Sentence 2 definition of > knowing
Sentence 3 cancel ", if there exist at all".
3. Here (1)(2) appear without having presented the corresponding
formulas before. First the formulas should appear!!
Reformulate the underlined part of Sent. 1 by saying that in
the given references the formulas do not appear.
Reformulate the last two sequences of this paragraph.
4. Sent. 1 "these" are yet unknown at these point.
Sent. 2 segment > interval
Sent. 3 omit "are right".
The function name "term" is not nice. I would propose "rank"
instead of it. S_n should be explained in a more elegant
way for example by considering linear polynomials in a_i with
coefficients 0 and 1.
7. Avoid the word "subheuristic"!
8. lucky > successful
10. "right hand side of DMIAMs" One can use rhs for a certain
given equation but not in general for relations that are not
displayed, hence one does not see which is left and which is
right.
Omit the "Note" column form the table (No information for
the reader).
11. polinomial > polynomial (Use spell checkers!)
12. Reformulate. Let just the integral stay on the lhs.
14. Sent. 1 said > noted
3) "closedform" in which sense? As a sum it is by no means
closed.
15. "Thirdly"?? Reformulate this paragraph. As far as the author
can handle summation problem like the one here with the parameter
l I would not speak about "method".
17. Omit " the r.h.s for ...AMs".
Bring the reference list to a uniform style. 
