Ready.
Plagiarism is a breach of trust. It is catastrophical, if it occurs at a Ph.D. level.
copycat82 does commit plagiarism. This is provable mainly in two ways.
The former method, is how I evaluate the plagiarism of copycat82, and find it as a non-contributive sequel to E-nets (NN73, Da80); Later in time, without new content.
The latter method, is with an overall knowledge of the research (literature) published until that time. Mid-1980 is a fair time-gap, for this evaluation, given that copycat82 was granted a Ph.D. in 1982, although it is a worse than trivial subset of each of the prior art papers, which copycat82 attempts to cut-and-paste together. i.e: It is stuck with its self-contradictions, at the seams, among those papers.
copycat82 has no explicit comparisons of itself with the previous literature. The chapters one and two, and some introductory part of the other chapters are literature-overviews. But even there, each of the most-similar previous-research papers, gets mentioned only in a paragraph-or-two, if at all. And never again mentioned. There are no comparative evaluations with copycat82 itself. Could that be an acceptable standard for a Ph.D. work?.
Every single statement of copycat82, is such that, it is either trivial, or commits some major ignorance, and/or neglect:
In presence of a (previously published) prior art, the new text must contribute some new (and successful) idea. A jury must investigate its claims:
Find and read the previously published, similar-content papers/textbooks. Does the newer publication, in part, or as a whole, look like any previously published paper(s)? Does such, get cited? When similarities are too much, is there a separate compare-and-contrast section that discusses whyever a new work was needed, when the previous work already had the same, or more?
e.g: Compare and contrast copycat82 with the individual papers. This helps to spot some similarities, and some times to a point that an error or redundancy that would not make sense in copycat82, starts to make sense when the relevant context/assumptions in the source paper is observed. We may also infer, how much work is done, if at all, beyond the already published, and well-known, literature.
e.g: As an extra tip, compare and contrast the source papers among themselves, and see what copycat82 does, where they diverge. The copier may either duplicate one of them, or attempt a mix. When the source papers have different contexts/assumptions, the chunks of ideas imported from different papers, can thrash each other. That commits to the self-contradictions of copycat82.
investigate the claims' unnovelty First, the novelty-claims of the plagiarism-suspect may be listed, and next, tracked in the previously published literature. Fake Claims, and old content, do not count. The claims may be explicit, in the abstract or in some section that discusses the relative contributions beyond the previous literature. Or, else if the Ph.D. nominee ignores that duty, we may need to sift every line to enlist any significant question and/or solution, which presents some content, but without any reference to any previous source, and thereby, implicitly, it claims to be the original insight-provider, at that point. For any such claim, the questions are, whether it is really new (e.g: as opposed to the plagiarism of copycat82), and whether it is capable of anything positive (e.g: as opposed to the messy examples of copycat82 and its not verifiable, vague chops, etc.).
When some claim of contribution, either in the abstract, or within the text, sounds somewhat different than others, but it does not work, does the deleting of only those unworkable parts and/or complementing the missing part with some guessing, make it look like some other paper? Go back to step 1, and check with the criteria. e.g: Does it get cited for it? And so on...)
Benefit-of-Doubt Leads to a Full Cycle
At those points, which copycat82 cannot provide a workable result, and/or does not pronounce
anything, we may be able to guess it ourselves, and correct it. But that may only lead us to
the first part of the proof (of plagiarism). That is, one or more of the original papers had a
similar structure with that specific feature, which copycat82 attempts to claim (without citing
anyone), and furthermore, that (prior art paper) also had really achieved what copycat82 cannot.
That leaves copycat82, as worse than trivial.
When the sorting of the content into the previously-published versus new-claim categories, is finished, we have evaluated its contribution - if any. Each error, self-contradiction, and/or fake claim, may be a cue to iterate the steps again, as a pointer to its plagiarism, and it also automatically counts as some negative point, when evaluating the (lack of) quality of the work, and whether it could be appropriate to grant a Ph.D. title to such a person.
The result.
With such an immense variety, and number of errors, (in addition to the plagiarism from
existing research), copycat82 obviously does not fulfill even the requirements for an
undergraduate project, given that the result does not work.
Taking from elsewhere, with a little camouflage. Next, claiming to have produced it, by oneself. That omits citing the sources, where necessary, and it is a crime, even if the original producer agrees with it, because the people evaluating the submitter, expect his/her own work to be submitted, for an evaluation to make sense, in the first place.
The most prevalent cases may be in high schools, and undergraduate work, where homeworks get cheated, which is plagiarism itself. More seriously, academic work may be plagiarized, too, with presumably more important consequences. This may occur, when the jury (at peer-review journals, and/or at Ph.D.-awarding boards) is degenerate, careless, and/or otherwise, if they get manipulated (whether through social pressures, through witchcraft, etc.). (This is is not to undermine the consequences of an engineering degree obtained with plagiarized homeworks//projects, but if a PhD. nominee does it, that is more serious - as the title suggests holding more important positions, then, and/or in the future.)
Revokableness is a database term. In criminal circles, that may be termed punishable. That requires two sides. An act that is punishable, and a punishing-abled authority. In a database transaction, if a transaction has not caused any side-effects, it is silently revokable.
This is the strongest sense of the term revokable, and it is still enough in the case of copycat82 because when we totally revoke it, nothing gets lost from computer-science. It is totally plagiarized. We prove this, on this page.
The term null2negative encompasses a range that starts at no-contribution-at-all (as it is plagiarized), and with blunders upon blunders, moves to the cannot-work-whatsoever status.
copycat82, with clashed cut-and-pastes, thrashes the treasures (of the prior art, before it), to a point of unusability. That is similar to elephants giving a rock'n-roll party, in a glassware store,
In other words (in summary), the theorem that will be proven , is that: Whenever copycat82 is not exactly similar to what had been published before (i.e. when not null), it is (trivial/thoughtless and) degenerative against the very goals/desirables it is listing itself (i.e. it is negative). This is true in the case of abstraction, in the case of verifying/marking (state-space) complexity/dimensionality reduction, and this is true in the case of isolating/postponing data-dependencies in the lower/later phases of a top-down design process. Etc., etc. As a result, it is only a caricature of what had been published before.
A Petri net is what a Petri net verifier verifies. In other words, the formal definition of "Petri net"ness is a shared language between the designer/programmer, and the verifier/tools. Likewise, for E-nets, and other formalisms, too.
For example, when most, if not all, of the claimed features do turn out to need an E-net interpreter, to function correctly (or, to mean anything at all, in the first place), then it is emphatically not Petri net.