Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AjoChhand Machine

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MasaComp (talk | contribs) at 01:46, 8 July 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

AjoChhand Machine

AjoChhand Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It has been suggested that this article is a WP:HOAX. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A related article, frequency fractal has also been nominated for deletion. SpinningSpark 01:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Robert McClenon:There is more problem with the word "AjoChhand", Editor can easily remove the term from the article, why searching for that term? Without mentioning that word AjoChhand at least 20 peer reviewed articled were published. Why word is important? Term does not destroy the Science.

I believe it is a hoax. But it may not just be Wikipedia that is being hoaxed. The article's first reference is to an article in Information, with content similar to the article. Maybe an editor familiar with information science, and with knowledge of that journal, can comment? I have checked some of the other references, and they don't mention the "AjoChhand machine", or anything like it. Maproom (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Maproom:Journal is part of Hoax, how one tell journal, its editors and reviewers who worked for the paper for 8 months are part of a Hoax working together? This is a clear example of abusing a peer review system. Such a conspiracy theory against the system without any evidence is unfortunate.

Reply to JayJAy What looks like? So, anything looks like could be a point of argument. It may look like today is sunny to me and tomorrow is cloudy, that would decide the fate of an article?

Reply to Chillum So whether an article would exist in Wiki or not will be decided whether a theory is practically feasible or not. There are many theories already, who can decide what can be realized or not? On what basis?

A few of those are noted above (one example paper that is not mentioned, worlds smallest molecular neural net http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/95/11/10.1063/1.3227887), massively parallel computing on organic molecular layer is Nature Physics is the same work, these top journals for years have published hoax papers?Robert McClenon (talk). I sincerely request all of you just to read the papers, before commenting. There are a series of papers published on this article. The first paper was the one to many and many to one concept which is the foundation of this article Reference 3. Then read the paper in Reference 2 the Nature Physics work. Then read the paper on Information. If you have problem with the term AjoChhand that could be changed. The name is given in the last paper, but all papers are from the same group Maproom (talk). The name is not important. Check all papers are from Bandyopadhyay group and papers are in the top reputed journals. Also What did I do? all papers that are referenced including brain jelly in Advanced Functional Materials and Nature Physics are from one of the best journals of the world. I am surprised, that a simple use of terminology can create so much problem. I really doubt, not a single person have asked a single technical question. Why? Please ask technical question, I am ready to answer, discuss, please do not just comment.--MasaComp (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. It appears that this is an off-Wikipedia hoax, a paper that should not have gotten through peer review. See Sokal affair as another example. If the original hoax paper becomes notable, an article about the hoax would be encyclopedic. However, this article writes about the machine as if it were theoretically valid. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Robert McClenon This is a clear example of attacking the editor, reviewer and the scientific peer review system. Editors of Wikipedia would decide on the judgement of another journal? How it fits with the Wikipedia policy? How an editor of Wikipedia is authorized to judge that? There is no evidence given by the editor to prove that it was a hoax, it is not proved yet, still "If the original hoax paper becomes notable, an article about the hoax would be encyclopedic." the statement shows that the decision of a "hoax" is taken before the judgement. How "hoax" certified by Wikipedia? On a peer reviewed work. The AjoChhand article is written as theoretically valid because it is peer reviewed and published. How editor Robert McClenon proves that it is not theoretically valid? What are the protocols? and How theoretical validity is decided in Wikipedia. How quality of a research work is being evaluated here. Not the facts.

  • Delete. This is based on a single primary source (footnote 1; there are 35 footnotes but all others predate the main publication on this topic and are used as background information only). It is published in a low-quality journal – its publisher, MDPI, is on Beall's list of "predatory open access journals", meaning that they take basically anything, with little or no peer review, and profit by charging authors publication fees. Google scholar only lists two other papers citing this one, both looking to be equally low quality. The publication itself is a mishmash of unrelated buzzwords linked together with little rhyme or reason, enough to make one wonder whether it was constructed by SCIgen rather than anything resembling human intelligence. The article creator has spammed this material across multiple other Wikipedia articles on more notable topics (that are unrelated to each other and to this mess). This is original research (barely dignified by publication in something that carries the trappings of, but is not, a scientific journal), non-notable, and probably also WP:COI. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to David Eppstein This is a lack of knowledge by the editor on the subject matter, the 35 footnotes contain several works from the same group that published footnote 1. How those are related are also noted clearly. Selecting only one of many papers (see discussion below) which is in the lowest impact of all to criticise a journal is not within the purview of honest scientific spirit. The notability should be judged honestly based on all papers (see discussion below), isolating one paper among many is a wrong judgement due to less understanding of the subject matter. There is a personal abuse in the later part, which we ignore, a neutral wikipedia can check whether personal attack by editor to scientific practices will be allowed or not. The allegation of spamming is false. One can check timing that only after Wikipedia suggested that the article was "Orphan" and links needs to be established with other pages, then based on the suggestion of Wikipedia other links were made.

David Eppstein (talk)This is surprising that no one asks any technical question about this paper. A paper that is published in 2014 January, how could it get more scitations? Why not background papers are considered? Why they are being ignored? Is Wikipedia policy is to check what is the quality of a journal? And whether it was properly reviewed or not? Check the submission to publication time. 8 months the authors were grilled. Every part of the article were validated experimentally some times or other earlier. Then those were summarized in the Information paper in a new packaged name. Regarding "The article creator has spammed this material across multiple other Wikipedia articles on more notable topics (that are unrelated to each other and to this mess)", it was suggested by Wikipedia to link to other article, checked the time, only after that it was linked following Wikipedia suggestion. There was not motive of spamming.--MasaComp (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I read the abstract of the paper. I read the first five or so pages of the paper. It makes no sense at all. It for instance refers to closed timelike curves (CTCs), which to the best of anyone's knowledge only exist inside a black hole. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To all suggesting a delete, reviewers spent 8 months to review the Information paper, and none of you reviewed the paper, did not even read it, and its background. Gregor Drummen who himself a computer scientist took 3 months to write an article on this paper.http://mdpimag.com/2014/06/03/brain-jelly-an-organic-brain-like-computer-without-circuits-or-logic-gates/ This is very easy to comment and criticise, this is very difficult to do a work. I just request David Eppstein (talk) and Robert McClenon (talk) to take time to read, just by looking at something even great scientists cannot decide what is correct. And you are taking no time to abuse a work, I bet none of you have even read the papers properly. Also the comment of Robert McClenon (talk)is surprising, you are commenting on the judgement of a peer review journal but not citing a single reason why it is not scientific? Criticise the work, that is science, I ask several times, raise the technical points if you can. Saying, this is a bad journal, editor is not good, not cited many times, all these points are human "perception", I can invite 50 top mathematicians and computer scientists who will come here and suggest to keep this article, but I wont do that, you know why? Because you are the editors, politics is never science. See all comments above, those who suggest delete, not a single person has commented on the content, which part is not peer reviewed, which parts do not have any background reference?--MasaComp (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

Robert McClenon (talk) Shall I show you several top computer scientists papers on CTC based computing. And I can show you many places in Wikipedia where those are cited? Check Turing Machine related articles, CTC is widely used and in the 1960s CTC based computing was one of the most prominent articles. Please search Wikipedia, if you do not find how for 50 years CTC is used to show computing beyond Turing, I will show you the Wikilinks. But thanks at least one person has talked scientifically.--MasaComp (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) Shall I show you several top computer scientists papers on CTC based computing. And I can show you many places in Wikipedia where those are cited? Check Turing Machine related articles, CTC is widely used and in the 1960s CTC based computing was one of the most prominent articles. Please search Wikipedia, if you do not find how for 50 years CTC is used to show computing beyond Turing, I will show you the Wikilinks. But thanks at least one person has talked scientifically.--MasaComp (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)--MasaComp (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Robert McClenon (talk) Follow this link in Wikipedia how many works were done on black hole computing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputation This is what we showed in PNAS in 2008 paper, one circular chain generated 4 billion solutions. This is what we used to solve problems in Nature Physics that would require millions of years to solve. Read the nature Physics to learn how time could be used as fractal clocks. Prof Andy Adamatzky wrote a review of our nature paper, read that too, how we controlled clock in 2010. That is used in 2014 Information paper.--MasaComp (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article to which you link states: "Technical arguments against the physical realizability of hypercomputations have been presented." In short, it's the stuff of dreams, not of future reality. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) and David Eppstein (talk) We do science, nothing else. Information paper is a peer reviewed paper and we have given several plenary presentations across the globe since last one year, we have posted the link of plenary lectures also, just two reference does not count everything, see above, if you start discussing the science, I can continue for days, evaluate the work, take time, do not hurry, and then decide. Check our PNAS paper, it took one year to publish, check our Nature Physics it took one year to publish, and even Information paper, it took 8 months for reviewing. It takes time.--MasaComp (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) and David Eppstein (talk) The AjoChhand Machine is patented, A vertical parallel processor (filed 2006) JP-5187804 Anirban Bandyopadhyay, K. Miki (issued 2013) This is a new class of processor, after 7 years of fight with top Japanese and US companies. Without complete claim of the technology we would never make it public.--MasaComp (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) and David Eppstein (talk) Absolutely, it was a dream to use clocks for a long time to use CTC like concepts, clock inside a clock is not CTC, that we proposed, but high speed computing we have demonstrated that cannot be realized using any supercomputers of the world. The experimental description I have put above for PNAS and Nature Physics, how we demonstrated massive computing. Information is the last, also check the patent. I do not want to show you down or defeat you guys. Science is difficult, just ask me questions, for 15 years I have dedicated my life to this, and I will be upset today no. Check the patent we fought for 7 years with my group and lawyers. We hold the patent of this technology now in 2013, then we communicated the paper in Information. --MasaComp (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) and David Eppstein (talk) I know you are doing your job honestly, thats why I am asking, read above things, if you have any concerns, let me know, grill me as much as you can, but let the truth come out, you would see, always what appears may not he the truth. After we got the patent, we wrote a paper in Information to package our 10 years of patents and papers which we published in top notch journals in different times. I can list you 35 plenary lectures, awards for the research on this topic, earlier BBC journalist named it Nano Brain in 2008 (PNAS), but we advanced it further to molecular computer in 2010 in Nature Physics, then again problems arised and we published 2014 the brain jelly in Advanced Functional Materials as cover article. These are all technical papers, and those papers have all about fractal tape. Kindly read the AjoChhand Machine Wikipedia page and then read the Advanced Functional Materials 2014 paper abstract, you will see the similarity. Something is written simply in Information does not mean there is no technical background to it. There is, but it takes time to understand. --MasaComp (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) and David Eppstein (talk) Please at least read our above arguments. We do not want you to accept everything without debating, we disclosed nothing in 10 years, but as noted above we have 7 years fought patent, several more patents filed, top class journal publications showing how to perform extremely complex computation in 3 or 4 minutes using fractal network of clocks, those experimental results were summarized in Information paper. Check all papers, patents, several reviewers from different fields reviewed for a year before accepting the papers, so please do not abuse those editors, reviewers. Above many has abused the journals, we have documented above how several publications holds the key to the AjoChhand machine proposal. In Wikipedia several articles do exist wherein there is no background work, but in this case, more than 10-15 papers exist. Do not search with AjoChhand term, because a term makes no sense, the content is. We wanted scientific discussion but found people are abusing editors and reviewers, why did they accepted those papers and patents too? This is no Science, this is a painful abuse.--MasaComp (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally only one scientific question was asked why do we use CTC?

The complete story

We have not, but we used that idea, what is the idea? If you have a clock whose minimum time is one second, you can go to a system inside wherein minimum time is 1 millisecond, do the job and come back, the clock would assume, no time has passed, but it is just transition from one clock to another, can we have many such clocks?, yes, so we created organic materials for 8 years and demonstrated this is possible. This clock network is AjoChhand machine. PNAS 2008 paper is AjoChhand machine, Nature Physics 2010 is AjoChhand Machine and Advanced Functional Materials 2014 is also a hardware, namely brain jelly. This is a simple topic, with this, we are not claiming Nobel Prize, this is 10 years of effort to demonstrate a cool concept. And this is the complete story.--MasaComp (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why all our papers are in high impact journals and Information paper in low impact? For which we are being abused, reviewers and editors of those journals are abused. We summarized the 10 years old results in computer science, biology, materials science and physics to tell one story. So it became 73 pages long paper, who would publish that tell me? That is the reason, only one paper in the 10 years story is in low impact journal, and you all are abusing us for that. No one even asked me what do you want to tell here? What is your message. This is so painful, no one enjoys science anymore, no one is receptive, everyone wants to give judgement. after all, all science that is true today will become obsolete in the next 50 years as told by one Nature editor, still, no one wants to learn --MasaComp (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]



  • Delete Agree this sounds like a hoax. But if it isn't, it is not notable in any case. As David Eppstein points out, it is very poorly cited and only in equally dubious works. Just to quote one snippet from the original paper "experimentally determined resonance chain with bandwidth 10−15 Hz..."; the period of such a resonance is about 30 million years—how long exactly did it take to make this "experimental determination"? SpinningSpark 00:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Spinning Spark Here is the thing that you missed. I quote from the manuscript "Microhertz resolution could be measured without noise trouble. Below microhertz, large time domain data was collected and based on the slopes nano hertz to femto hertz data are produced." This you missed. There is a technology by which micro to nano hertz you can measure, but you do not need to wait for 100 years. Search a bit, please. From slope commercial machines determines the frequency in a few seconds. Also there are many other ways. Regarding notability, "AjoChhand word" seems to be problematic for everybody. What about changing it to Frequency Fractal Machine. There is nothing in the name. Also, please check the experimental papers used in AjoChhand Article and the Information paper. All associated papers tell one story, Information is a sum up paper, it is not the only one paper, why other papers are ignored? As told, there is nothing in the name. Nature Physics, PNAS together cited 60-70 times, those are part of it, those are very notable more than 60 interviews and highlights published.


  • I would like to thank the original author of the article for agreeing to use Wikipedia rules for a deletion discussion and avoiding personal attacks. You are entitled to that credit. Thank you. However, that doesn't mean that we will strike our !votes for deletion of the article. Thank you for becoming cooperative after being cautioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Robert McLenon We were abused by editor in personal email, so we responded. We do not abuse. One point. It is obvious that the discussion has shifted to a point where everybody is searching for "AjoChhand Machine" which is not our concern at all. If you want we would like to change the name of the page itself, because we do not want that a simple name makes 10 years work a hoax tag. However, we do not know how to do that. Do we have to delete the page entirely, to change the name of the page? Also, we have argued above why it is that only one paper is looked into? Why intentionally all other papers are ignored. Nature Physics, PNAS together cited 60-70 times, those are part of it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AjoChhand_Machine&oldid=616028111"