At 01:51 AM 10/26/2012, Eric Angelini wrote:

... this is pure math-fun, http://thatsmathematics.com/mathgen/ Best, É.

Perhaps the number N=2^11-1 in this Proc. NAS paper indicates misconduct? --- From comp.risks: Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 10:37:17 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Misconduct Widespread in Retracted Science Papers, Study Finds (Carl Zimmer) Carl Zimmer, *The New York Times*, 1 Oct 2012 Last year the journal *Nature* reported an alarming increase in the number of retractions of scientific papers - a tenfold rise in the previous decade, to more than 300 a year across the scientific literature. Other studies have suggested that most of these retractions resulted from honest errors. But a deeper analysis of retractions, *** being published this week, *** challenges that comforting assumption. In the new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, two scientists and a medical communications consultant analyzed *** 2,047 *** retracted papers in the biomedical and life sciences. They found that misconduct was the reason for three-quarters of the retractions for which they could determine the cause. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/science/study-finds-fraud-is-widespread-in...