You can fool everybody, some time;
You can fool some people, every time.
But you cannot fool everybody, every time.
The Ph.D. degree was granted in 1982, although copycat82 was even worse than trivial.
A fake license, such as a plagiarized Ph.D., lets a junk-allocation of public seats. If anything, it is a proof of un-credibility, not the vice versa.
The text of copycat82 is the same way, too. It contains a lot of fake claims, including a "method" which is supposed to let verify-modularly, but it contains no proofs-of-workability. Even this could tip, almost anyone, that it is an unfinished work, and not possibly a Ph.D.-granted text. Next, upon a little scrutiny, it is obvious that, the claimed "method" could not be trusted, at all.
In short, it imitates NN73 (or, SARA) with its macros, but assumes as if they were equivalent to VD78-reductions, per verifiability. i.e: Only its unworkability is provable. Not the vice versa. It is not verifiable by the mentioned (Petri net) verifier, and even if we were to imagine a new algorithm, the enormous vagueness of copycat82, would explode the complexity of any imaginable verifier, to the maximum, instead of gain anything out of such modularity.
Let alone anything with
It appears the readers of copycat82 also need some
copycat82 cannot even pass as a useable tutorial text - its examples, all, being either vague, and/or faulty, and/or very trivial. Not to mention that, even copycat82 itself does not uniformly follow what itself "proposes" (or, what itself subscribes-to, as cut-and-pasted from prior art). If even the Ph.D. nominee/group does not, or cannot, solve even minimal examples with it, who else would use it?
In presence of all those un-referenced material, if you would tell me that it is "computer science basics" and need not be cited, I would ask you "What is left then? The content of those (prior art) papers already cover this." A full-cover of the content by the preceding literature, with whatever explanation/excuse, would still be unoriginality, and need not be granted a Ph.D. And if that material is considered "basic computer science," then such an immense faultfullness would let question how such a person could even carry a B.S. degree in computer science.
This example is a response to avoid a crowded-mouthed attempt which tries to blur the issue, among a variety of dimensions. The page Falls Apart, Upon Scrutiny. Not A Thread to Depend On., lets avoid yet other such trickery. These easy answers, may preserve the integrity of your mind.
Although the case study I describe is about a single Ph.D., the case may not be isolated. i.e: Was it only a magic number that the jury could grant a Ph.D. degree to copycat82, although it was worse than trivial? How many other such fake-licenses exist out there?
Whether the jury may have been manipulated, is part of a general question, about how we may avoid abuses. With such a case of fake-license, the abuse(s) may only linger and compound, in the years which follow - until we notice, and stop it.
No names to be given on this page, about copycat82, although available, through e-mail, to various people, e.g: to the academicians, or board members, who may avoid, or revoke such un-credible Ph.D. titles.
Availability: The name of the Ph.D. grantee, the full title of the dissertation, the university which granted the title, etc. It is a well-known university in the U.S.A., even if little heard-of in the field of computer science.
copycat82/83 is a plagiarist. Therefore, the readers of this case-study, do not need the text of copycat82/83, to learn about what it contains. It suffices to read the prior art papers, which copycat82/83 cuts-and-pastes. But if the text of copycat82 is already available to the reader, then the page-by-page section is probably convenient, too.
The material in this case study was collected in 1994-1995, after about a dozen years of the grant. The university of employment was/is in a third world country, at one of the universities that has one of the largest share of the successful university-entrance scorers.
But all that I could locate as the un-credible-Ph.D.-person's tangible work, was only for the demonstration of the lack of productivity, yet, there were his never-ending claims for further position holding, and authority establishing. This result was very expectable: The Ph.D. work is a precursor of what was to come. He holds positions, he wants further, submits trade-magazine attacks (to justify further claims of central-position holding), but does not produce any substantial work to justify the positions he has been already holding. I may discuss this part of the case study, later. Here, we will discuss what needs no further witness: copycat82, the un-credible Ph.D. text.
I have encountered the Mr.Un-credible-Ph.D. in real life. I tell about that on a page discussing the copycat82-person, in general (still, without names) discusses his personal presence, correlating with copycat82 text.
By the time we encountered, I was already thinking of myself as a very well grounded operating-systems thinker, and as a "distributed"er. However, my collecting and reading of the Petri net literature was for the express purpose of finding out the quality of his Ph.D. dissertation/paper (after I had raised extensive criticisms against a C book he had written, with two assistants of his). The current page, and the sibling pages at this site, present the results. (Partly, at least.)
The personal aspect is academic incompetence, plagiarism, etc. The surprise may have been its fake claims, unoriginality, and being full of errors. But even that would not surprise me. In fact, I had begun reading copycat82 after already asking the question "Before becoming an (associate) professor, he must have, at least, prepared some Ph.D. work, and made a contribution, mustn't he?" Well, as it turned out, he did not.
A Ph.D. is a license at a very large, coarse granularity. In the currently established educational system, without a Ph.D., a person cannot become a university professor (with some very rare exceptions). And it is, unfortunately, the vice versa, too, at least in the lesser developed areas: Evaluations of the quality and the tangible achievements of a Ph.D.-holder, may essentially not exist. Because of lacking enough people who can evaluate, or for whatever reason. The result can be a mental abuse of a few generations of bright students, who face such an incompetence.
I propose finer licensing, and for many branches, even no need for (centralized) institutions. Independent testing and a free-market for teaching, while also observing who is (and whose students are) succesful in learning what, and building the whole life-time educational process on this. The licensing granularity may be even at a single hour or less. For example, a [standard] lecture for [introduction to] polar co-ordinates.
A blind licensing, without appropriate evaluation, is an abuse of public, with highly probable catastrophical consequences.
This does not necessarily mean that only the less-capable people commit all the wrongdoings in the academic, and/or other aspects of life. But surely, a less-capable person, with an ambition, appears to be a more likely deviant from appropriate conduct - to keep the undeserved position, and to get more, maybe.
You cannot refute the name. Once my articles are read, why I call it "copycat82, the un-PhD" asserts itself. It is both an acronym, the Un-credible Ph.D., and it signals its status. It is the un-PhD either because we all agree that it should not be granted a Ph.D. (it must be revoked), or else, because, it nullifies the sense of a standard we expect in a Ph.D. title.
That is, either that particular Ph.D. title, or the whole concept of a Ph.D. institution may be dumped away. I expect the former, because a stubborn attachment to a wrongdoing is not any sense of a standard. As when the earth shakes heavily, a strict attachment to each other, may break the whole structure. Beware the resonance. I hope the circle of wrongdoing does not enlarge, and the boundary of cutting the cords with such wrongdoings will be limited to as small a circle as possible.
The question whether the jury may have been manipulated, is part of a general question, which can involve both social/psychological mechanisms, and/or occult-based abuses. Standing strong against such abuses is doable, to a large extent, if not completely. The page against manipulation starts a discussion.