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 01:28, 12 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?

  • I am finding it hard to see how such a device could exist in this universe. Chillum 20:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is that a !vote to delete?

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.

Reply to Maproom Making allegation against a journal is incorrect. We can make allegation again Nature and Science too because they published biggest hoax in the history of Science. This is incorrect, very injustice to the peer review culture and the scientific community.

  • Delete A google search on "AjoChhand Machine" -wikipedia gives *exactly* two hits. Non-notable and technical question and answers say *nothing* about notability.Naraht (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to NarahtNature Physics, PNAS together cited 60-70 times, those are part of this work, those are very notable more than 60 interviews and highlights published. become rather passionate to save it. It's not against any policy/guideline to argue with every delete vote, but may

  • Delete as just utter crap to be honest, No evidence of any notability!. (I'm not sure whether I should've added my comment here or below under the huge comments so If I'm wrong please move my comment below, Thanks), –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Davey2010 Nature Physics, PNAS together cited 60-70 times, those are part of it, those are very notable more than 60 interviews and highlights published. You reject all works and take only one part of it, just to criticize. This is unfair to the work done

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. Rbecome rather passionate to save it. It's not against any policy/guideline to argue with every delete vote, but mayegarding "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]

Collapsing discussion as it is disruptive

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) 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 Eppsteinbecome rather passionate to save it. It's not against any policy/guideline to argue with every delete vote, but may (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.

  • Keep This article is well cited and strongly supported by well known journals such as Nature Physics, PNAS. The article has been wrongly tagged as hoax where it would have been more appropriate to tag it as {{expert-subject}}. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. RunNroll (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)RunNroll — RunNroll (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply to Robert McLenon If you feel that their are some issues with article, then list them in bullets so that they can be resolved one by one. And I would request MasaComp & others who support the article to give logical reasons with citations or references against each point. This will be a better approach to reach consensus rather than the way things are moving now.RunNroll (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)RunNroll[reply]

  • Delete (Expert)—I'm not sure what this says about me, but I do have an inkling about the contents of the article. The short version: implement a general Turing Machine using only directed acyclic graph: each state/vertex encodes the entire execution history up to that point. If you remember Finite Automata from your CompSci theory class, think of this as Infinite Automata where no state can be visited twice. Maybe. Or maybe not. Anyway, single papers with single-digit citation counts and zero coverage in reliable sources don't pass our notability guidelines. I doubt very much this is a hoax—it's far too over the top for that—but neither does it belong on enWP. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC) n.b. Just saw the "expert" tag. My Ph.D. is in CompSci, and I'm employed as a research scientist in that field. For whatever that's worth. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Lesser Cartographics This article is not about single paper, please read the article, this is about at least 10 papers published in biology, computer science, materials science, and with total citations much more than 100, which is your criteria of becoming a notable article in Wikipedia. According to your own argument the article should be published. Information paper is not a technical paper it is a summary of 10 years of research and you can check that in the information paper, there are only schematics (this is not a technical paper at all, why you study this), for every argument old papers published in the last 10 years covering more than 100 citations are included. Regarding cellular automaton, you have misunderstood the concept totally. What you argue about reading textbook, we suggest, if you read textbook and try to explain everything in terms of textbook then you cannot do novel research, and all that you write for Wikipedia will be a redundant. There is no infinity here (read the Nature Physics paper), tape inside a tape is not written in any textbook, if you can show us any such book, we will delete this article and not only that retract the paper. This is novel, never said by anybody, so it justifies to be in the Wikipedia with more than 100 citations.--MasaComp (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasaComp (talk • contribs) 03:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"if you read textbook and try to explain everything in terms of textbook then you cannot do novel research, and all that you write for Wikipedia will be a redundant". Yes. Exactly. That's an excellent summary of our prohibition against original research. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a good idea to rename a page while the debate is ongoing. You can explain here what you think the name should be and the article can moved later if it is decided it should be kept. SpinningSpark 02:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is well cited and strongly supported by well known journals such as Nature Physics, PNAS. The article has been wrongly tagged as hoax where it would have been more appropriate to tag it as {expert-subject}. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. RunNroll (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)RunNroll [reply]
Duplicate !vote struck. Please only provide a single keep or delete opinion. That means one per person, not one per login name — using multiple sockpuppets in an AfD is highly frowned on and is very unlikely to achieve your preferred result. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Robert McLenon & Spinningspark If you feel that their are some issues with article, then list them in bullets so that they can be resolved one by one. And I would request MasaComp & others who support the article to give logical reasons with citations or references against each point. This will be a better approach to reach consensus.RunNroll (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)RunNroll[reply]

I see that, apart from writing on this page and !voting here (twice), RunNroll's only contribution to Wikipedia has been to insert an error into Toll roads in Belarus. Maproom (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to RunNroll This is my last post, after this, I will not come to reply because I am a scientist and I have worked all day today and believe me this was biggest mistake of my life to come here and get abused for hoax. I leave this for the judgement of editors. Check www.anirbanlab.co.nr for some aspects of this project. I have collaborators across the world, I have not asked anyone to come and support us here, I am hurt, so this is my last message, and this is to you.

Here are the citations used in the Information paper, the information paper is not a technical paper it is a summary paper, therefore need not to be given too much importance, of course if you read that you get our biology, computer science and physics papers on which we worked for more than 10 years in this project. Information paper cites all of those works. Here are those citations. The 10 patents are listed below the paper list. These are not all the papers, these are some of the related papers, AjoChhand Machine article has cited some other papers also. All are interconnected. The "brain building project" was part of ICYS project in Japan that started in 2003.

In this computer, each cell of a tape is a cell, it is a multilevel memory switching device. First you see memory switching papers then processor papers. To see citation below you can see 162, it means this is cited 162 times. On this topic we are the pioneer in the world with around 1000 citations and numerous international awards.

A list of papers and patents
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Large conductance switching and memory effects in organic molecules for data-storage applications, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, Applied physics letters 82 (8), 1215-1217 162 2003
  • Large conductance switching and binary operation in organic devices: Role of functional groups, A Bandhopadhyay, AJ Pal, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 107 (11), 2531-2536 118 2003
  • Multilevel conductivity and conductance switching in supramolecular structures of an organic molecule, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, Applied physics letters 84 (6), 999-1001 78 2004
  • Memory device applications of a conjugated polymer: Role of space charges, HS Majumdar, A Bandyopadhyay, A Bolognesi, AJ Pal, Journal of Applied Physics 91 (4), 2433-2437 76 2002
  • Origin of negative differential resistance in a strongly coupled single molecule-metal junction device, R Pati, M McClain, A Bandyopadhyay, Physical review letters 100 (24), 246801 58 2008
  • Tuning of Organic Reversible Switching via Self‐Assembled Supramolecular Structures, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, Advanced Materials 15 (22), 1949-1952 57 2003
  • Data-storage devices based on layer-by-layer self-assembled films of a phthalocyanine derivative HS Majumdar, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, Organic electronics 4 (1), 39-44 39 2003
  • Massively parallel computing on an organic molecular layer, A Bandyopadhyay, R Pati, S Sahu, F Peper, D Fujita, Nature Physics 6 (5), 369-375 38 2010
  • Memory-switching phenomenon in acceptor-rich organic molecules: impedance spectroscopic studies, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 109 (13), 6084-6088 35 2005
  • Electrical bistability in molecular films: transition from memory to threshold switching, SK Majee, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, Chemical physics letters 399 (1), 284-288 32 2004
  • A 16-bit parallel processing in a molecular assembly, A Bandyopadhyay, S Acharya, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (10), 3668-3672 28 2008
  • Molecular level control of donor/acceptor heterostructuresin organic photovoltaic devices, B Pradhan, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, Applied physics letters 85 (4), 663-665 23 2004
  • Writing and erasing information in multilevel logic systems of a single molecule using scanning tunneling microscope, A Bandyopadhyay, K Miki, Y Wakayama, Applied physics letters 89 (24), 243506 22 2006
  • Key to design functional organic molecules for binary operation with large conductance switching, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, Chemical physics letters 371 (1), 86-90 22 2003
  • Atomic water channel controlling remarkable properties of a single brain microtubule: correlating single protein to its supramolecular assembly, S Sahu, S Ghosh, B Ghosh, K Aswani, K Hirata, D Fujita, ..., Biosensors and Bioelectronics 47, 141-148 19 2013
  • Multi-level memory-switching properties of a single brain microtubule, S Sahu, S Ghosh, K Hirata, D Fujita, A Bandyopadhyay, Applied Physics Letters 102 (12), 123701 15 2013
  • A new approach to extract multiple distinct conformers and co-existing distinct electronic properties of a single molecule by point-contact method, A Bandyopadhyay, S Sahu, D Fujita, Y Wakayama, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 12 (9), 2198-2208 8 2010

Here are 10 patents

  1. A vertical parallel processor (2006) JP-5187804 Anirban Bandyopadhyay, K. Miki (issued 2013)
  2. An inductor made of arrayed capacitors (2010) JP-096217 (world patent filed), Satyajit Sahu, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
  3. Thermal noise driven molecular rotor (2013). 13-MS-095; Subrata Ghosh, Satyajit Sahu, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
  4. Sensor, molecular machine, and controller attached programmable nano-robot (2013). 13-MS-097; Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
  5. A molecular chip that generates electrical power from free thermal noise (2013). 13-MS-096; Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
  6. A supramolecular architecture creation by successive phase transitions and radiations (2013). 13-MS-099'; Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita; Satyajit Sahu, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
  7. A supramolecular architecture that forms automatically as the system self-assembles the "if-then" statements of computer programming (2013). 13-MS-100; Anirban Bandyopadhyay, Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita
  8. A computer architecture that uses frequency fractal modulation as the basis of information processing (2013). 13-MS-101; Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
  9. A chemical synthesis technology in which materials self-assemble such that a particular fractal made of frequency is generated (2013). 13-MS-098; Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
  10. Synthesis of a spiral organic structure wherein the magnetic field produced is the function of the charge stored (2013). 13-MS-102; Satyajit Sahu, Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasaComp (talk • contribs) 03:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As written the article is essentially incomprehensible, and appears to be nonsense, and many bits that can be understood are wrong (for example, the bit about Turing discovering that (Turing) a-machines cannot solve the halting problem is, at best, a fundamental misunderstanding - Turing invented a-machines specifically to provide a formal model of computation in which the decide-ability of the halting problem could be discussed, OTOH the 1938 date reference would suggest that the author is actually trying to refer to a later result, where Turing demonstrated that an a-machine augmented with an oracle could *also* not decide the halting problem, in which case the section is also significantly in error as written). In any event, there is no indication of notability. Rwessel (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not at all notable. Subject appears in just one (uncited) paper, and that paper displays multiple misunderstandings of the topic. For example, in line with the Church–Turing thesis, alternatives to the Turing Machine are not in themselves anything new. Indeed, the Turing Machine was not even the first published formal model of computability. As Rwessel notes, the present article is gibberish, and the discussion here also suggests a degree of WP:COI, but the key point here is the total lack of notability. -- 101.117.108.115 (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as non-notable per WP:GNG. Note to creator of article and friends - make your "keep" arguments once. Posting walls of text in response to every "delete" comment, is not helpful (WP:TLDR). ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Concur with Ukexpat that the editing by the proponent is disruptive. Proponent appears to be trying to overwhelm this discussion by arguing with every delete !vote. Similarly, the demands that we ask questions about the paper, when we tried to read the paper and found it incomprehensible, are disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say that. Doing so is just merely trying to understand your !vote is all, and proposing some person's article I understand WP:OWN up for deletion causes people to become rather passionate to save it. It's not against any policy/guideline to argue with every delete vote, but may be seen as poor practice. Tutelary (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the author is passionate but not disruptive. Assuming good faith this editor is here to improve the encyclopedia. This topic seems to not pass our notability criteria and seems odd in general though. Chillum 17:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Three google scholar hits, none of which are all primary sources per our WP:NOR policy, none of which are independent of the author. Also, as others have pointed out, all of these hits are effectively self-published. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep material delete AjoChhand Machine term it is not cited much, consensus is already reached above this and editors have already noted it This is bad to see that people suggesting delete here they use google to search "AjoChhand machine", which authors have already suggested to replace, because the name has been given recently, so of course the name cannot be found. Editor said, this name cannot be changed right now, but I request editor to change the name "AjoChhand machine" to "Vertical parallel processor", otherwise see the debate above, people are misled.--MasaComp (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now AjoChhand machine is edited, based on the comments made above. I will do this once in a day, because of lack of time. It was noted above that the AjoChahnd Machine was patented in the name Vertical Parallel Processor in 2006, all those editors concerned here should search "Vertical Parallel Processor" in Google, not AjoChhand machine. I have modified the article so that people stop referring to Information paper, which is only wherefrom the term "AjoChhand machine" is taken. As author of this Wikipedia article, I repeat, though anyone does not bother, some original papers are included now, and the AjoChhand machine is now modified. Please comment on partially modified article. If the new article "Vertical Parallel Processor" is acceptable we can discuss on that.--MasaComp (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single comment above is on the patent, not a single comment is on the Nature Physics, not a single comment is on the Advanced Functional Materials, Why? Why everybody is ignoring those papers, because those are highly cited. This is really a shame when we provide nearly thousands of citations list to the background papers of this Wikipedia article, every single person ignored it, Why? Editors, please note this.--MasaComp (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comments on quality of any paper, Wikipedia is not a peer review center, here some commenters might have conflict of interest (See Wikipedia policy, hence it was suggested that Wikipedia will not do peer review, consider peer review articles as authentic, but the violation of wikipedia policy is above, we can see, every other person passing judgement, and most of them are erroneous even by computer science school textbook).--MasaComp (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone who suggest "delete" wants to comment, I challenge, please comment on the original technical papers based on which the Information Article is written, the Nature Physics and PNAS and Advanced Funcational materials paper. I found zero comment from every single person above. If anyone thinks that they understands computer science well, because I see very high intellectual abusive remarks against published papers, editors, reviewers of those journals etc, above (violating Wiki policy), then prove the Nature Physics experimental demonstration, how that could be done in a Turing machine, or any finite machine, I challenge, many of those suggested delete, do not even understood those technical papers. So they resorted for the Information paper which is peer reviewed yet review kind of an article written for general audience. Count citation of Nature Physics and PNAS, see and then say, but you dont do this, why? Why selective Amnesia? Conflict of Interest?--MasaComp (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is a challenge to every single editor above who are abusing the Information article, and AjoChhand machine page, this is about fractal tape, prove that it is Turing tape. If you do, I will post here, that it was 10 years old wrong effort and concede consensus. But, if you cannot do not come here and abuse the editors of Information journals and authors. This fractal is the main theme of this Wikipedia article, and main theme of the clock concept published in Nature Physics, prove that the Nature Physics data junk, of course if you can understand the paper. If you cannot prove that you are not qualified to abuse the research content here. If you challenge the research ability of the scientists, then as an author of this Wiki Article I am challenging that you make comment without going to the deep, you selectively ignore the strong references related to this article and this is due to conflict of interest, count the citations of Nature Physics, PNAS and show us your honesty.--MasaComp (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above two challenges are not to humiliate or abuse those who comment delete, just to tell, that there are many things that we all do not know, be receptive, abusing reviewers, editors of other journals, peer reviewed works, is not a gold standard policy of Wiki, we must respect others research, who knows, the research could be a truth. If you ask questions, then ask about the positive points, suggest mistakes and corrections based on my claims here, if I find mistakes, I will be the first one to concede that it was wrong article, and ask for deletion. You see above, I found "AjoChhand machine" term cannot be the title of an article, I am suggesting editors, please change, and honoring all of you I am making changes--MasaComp (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest with the accusations of abuse, that is becoming very tiresome. Nobody is abusing you here, the page was nominated quite properly and needs to be considered on its merits. Attacking other editors is failing to assume good faith and in any case is has no bearing on the matter at hand. Would you also please leave off bolding everything under the sun, the convention here is to bold only the nature of your contribution (keep, delete, comment etc). It is especially not in your interest to repeatedly bold the word delete when you are arguing to keep the article. Just bear in mind that the closing administrator will be looking for those bolded keywords.
To take up one of your challenges, I searched for the term vertical parallel processor. The search in gbooks came up with zero results and the search in scholar came up with only two results in addition to the original paper. Both of these are by A Bandyopadhyay, they do not appear to be peer reviewed, they are cited by nobody, and are not, as far as I can tell, discussing an AjoChhand machine. It seems more like conventional neural network parallel computing. The issue here is not so much the truth of this research or its importance, Wikipedia is not qualified to judge that, but rather whether or not the research has been discussed by others in enough depth to make it notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. SpinningSpark 00:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Above, MasaComp wrote, as a reply to RunNroll: "This is my last post, after this, I will not come to reply because I am a scientist and I have worked all day today and believe me this was biggest mistake of my life to come here and get abused for hoax. I leave this for the judgement of editors." MasaComp then continues to complain about "abuse" here. I could say that any comment that one makes to oneself cannot be trusted, since RunNroll appears to be a sockpuppet of MasaComp. In any case, the statement that "This is my last post", followed by multiple posts, is disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk), as author to this article I said that I will not comment again, true, but I came back because of one reason, I made mistake in the article, and it could be that it was not others fault, it is my fault that is diverting everybody and I had to accept that. So I came to correct the article, You should praise me, should not you? Why abusing me? Your use of word "sockpuppet" is not good, right? Anyone who support this article will be termed by an honorable editor like you with such a bad word I request, please, please do not do this, we all love Wikipedia and still I respect you for your great work, you have tought me how to write an Wikipedia article, I joined only three or four days back, check it out, I am learning from all of you, AjoChhand Machine is my first article, so I made mistakes, and I am correcting it, give me time, I will be the best student of yours--MasaComp (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spinningspark You have not accepted my challenge, you have not even understood what the challenge was. I asked to look at the content of the Wikipedia AjoChhand article, not for a single word AjhoChhand, because everybody was putting it in Google and searching it. Wiki:NOT rule suggests that an article should be notable, no where it is said that the title should be notable or a single word. So I made two challenges, First, if any one is qualified, and 1% honest here, then talk about the notability of all five papers based on which the article is written, like Nature Physics and PNAS. I even challenged that no one who posting delete are not qualified to prove how in Nature Physics "clock based computing" went beyond Turing, if you do not understand then do not abuse reviewers of those journals and articles. Second challenge I made was "AjoChhand machine" is a class of computing which talks about fractal Turing tape, a concept similar to fractal time, if anyone is qualified here to prove that it is a wrong concept, it comes within Turing. Then the article content notability and originality could be understood. However, you do not know how to search, above, I proved you wrong. Here I prove you again. You have listed my article "Frequency Fractal" as not notable, now listen, inverse of frequency is time, Frequency Fractal = Time fractal, search now, you will find thousands of articles for both the terms. So you need to learn the Wiki rule Wiki:NOT, when a term exists for 30 years in papers and everywhere it is notable, your listing for my article for deletion shows the painful condition of Wiki. Shall I show you evidence of Frequency Fractal notable evidences? Forget about that, now lets come here, above one I raised, because you argued, since this article is selected for deletion so that article should also be selected for deletion, what a logic!!!!! I have edited the article and all 48 mentions of AjoChhand machine term is deleted if the title AjoChhand is deleted as I requested already, there will be no mention of AjoChhand in the entire article, all concerns of every single editor above is fully honored, I challenged to look at the content of Nature Physics and all associated papers to humbly learn, sometimes learning helps. Regarding technical issues of your comment, please note A Bandyopadhyay is not the inventor of Vertical Parallel processor. You are wrong. Vertical parallel processor was invented in 1992 by Stanford R. Ovshinsky, Guy Wicker Here is the link http://www.google.com/patents/US5159661 There is a long history of Vertical parallel processor, and I can list several works Wikipedia is completely silent about entire research field, there is zero number of article in entire Wikipedia about the entire issue. Finally please I found now that A Bandyopadhyay only gave the name AjoChhand to a particular class. AjoChhand Machine's fundamental concept was published in 1979, it was made by Wlodzimierz Holsztynski, this I will edit Wiki page AjoChhand soon, already AjoChhand name is discredited in the Wiki page, thus, no concern regarding this term holds now I personally feel the Article has given too much credit to undeserved, I will correct it soon.--MasaComp (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the Nature Physics article is not discussing the machine that you have written an article about. It therefore does not add to the notability of the subject no matter how many citations it has. SpinningSpark 01:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thanks User:Spinningspark, at least now we can discuss, open the Nature Physics paper go to the last two figures you will see time is noted, the logarithmic change in time is fractal, that is also noted in that papers abstract, this is a nice example of fractal time or fractal tape or fractal machine computing. AjoChhand machine is nothing but a fractal machine or fractal tape machine or fractal tape machine. Please check and enjoy, actually, you are not from this research field so you dont know, it natural. Of course, now, some editor here has noted me that entire content was found in fractality of time, there are now thousands of evidences of fractal machine, fractal time etc, hence, now for Wiki:NOT rule notability of these terms are much more.

To all persons above I have received a personal message from any one of you may be that all that is written in AjoChhand Machine Wiki article is very well known in conventional science, this is called, "fractality in time", I have checked and found that this is true. So, please give me time. I need to give credit to very different peoples, I need two days to include all those citations to the article, because currently, many things are cited in the name of different people.--MasaComp (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. No sources for the concept defined in the article have been found, and the mass of verbiage from the article author includes no reasons to keep the article. I suggest a snow delete at this point. -- 101.117.28.72 (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The author has replaced the term AjoChhand Machine with fractal tape machine in the article and is also suggesting the article be renamed. To be scupulously fair, I am reposting the "find sources" links below with this search term (although I am not seeing anything come up other than the Wikipedia article). SpinningSpark 09:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Neither of these search phrases appears in Zentralblatt MATH, which suggests that the concept has no been the subject of indepdent reliable sources. Deltahedron (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment A kind request to User:Spinningspark , If you want please put the name "fractal machine" then people can search, fractal tape and fractal machine represents similar thing, but people do not understand the similarity, they simply take the word and google. For example Turing machine or Turing tape are same, but if we write Turing tape machine, it is same but if you search you wont find its reference, though technically it is correct. Similarly, Fractal tape, and Fractal machine are same as Fractal tape machine, because without tape you cannot make a machine, but you see, if you search, then you wont get it, so I converted Fractal tape machine into Fractal machine in the article, please consider this--MasaComp (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am searching and finding that several people has given different name to the same concept. Here are some examples. 1. A FRACTAL TOPOLOGY OF TIME----Kerri Welch (you can find entire research thesis on this topic) 2. Fractal and Multifractal Time Series------Jan W. Kantelhardt http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.0747.pdf 3. Fractal space-time---- http://luth2.obspm.fr/~luthier/nottale/arEDU08.pdf Here is fractal time calculator http://www.greggbraden.com/fractal-time-calculator Fractal machine, However http://blog.sciencevsmagic.net/science/fractal-machine/ "Fractal Turing machine" http://forum.wolframscience.com/archive/topic/1515-1.html Finally, let me take some time, I am searching thoroughly and checking everything, in a day or two I will compile all references, and improve the article.--MasaComp (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the problem that other people are pointing out to you -- if you need to do your own original research on the topic to write an article then we cannot have it on Wikipedia, where we go by what has already been published in independent reliable sources. If you think this is an important concept which has been discussed under various names and no-one has yet recognised the common features of, then write a scholarly paper on the subject and get it published by a good scientific journal. Wikipedia is not the venue for that. Deltahedron (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deltahedron (talk) Thank you very much for your kind note and very constructive criticism. I have really happy to see that some very good criticisms are coming out. I have written this Wikipedia article, that does not mean I know everything. As pointed out to me by some editor above, that the article that I have written in the name as "AjoChhand machine" is very notable in the term "fractality of time", the way I wrote, was wrong, I have already accepted that I committed mistake, and following that I have changed the article completely, perhaps you have not checked it recently, please go through. I stated above and confirmed, that is true. You can cross-check. As noted, "the concept in the Wikipedia article is Fractal machine and different groups named this concept in different terms, that does prove above the concept of this article in Wiki is not original, it is existing for a long time." Now, I honor your statement "where we go by what has already been published in independent reliable sources" true. In order for me to honor your concern fully, I have to add several sources of "fractal machine". There are several reliable sources, if you google it, you can find it. What I stated above, because of extreme time constraint, I am not able to arrange the references properly in the Wikipedia article, so I said, give me some time, this is a 30 years old research, please see the references above, some of which I have already included, at least 5 groups across the globe has worked, so it needs time.--MasaComp (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting cite—I was trying to track down the Nature Physics paper and came across this instead. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turing's world of computing and the Darwin's theory of evolution are two concepts that form the scientific columns of the current human civilization. These two models survive for a long time and elevated as a religious faith for the scientists, sociologists, artists, thinkers, —in every single way that defines human expression. These two philosophies are apparently unrelated, but, stems from a similar fundamental ground "matter" and binary true/false argument. Here we review multiple Ecplises and reincarnation of Turing and Darwin's sermons in the light of our new invention of "invincible rhythm" (or Ajeya Chhandam in Sanskrit, shortly AjoChhand) concept that disregards the materialistic philosophy and binary arguments, where the logical statements are composed of multiple truths.

— Ghosh, Subrata; Bandyopadhyay, Anirban (Undated), Ecplising & replacing the two most fundamental religions of science: Turing world of computation and Darwin's world of evolution {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help), emphasis added, url points to (blacklisted) functionspace.org.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) Every single mention of AjoChhand machine is deleted from this Wikipedia article 46 mentions earlier, and then rest as I asked time, the article you mention is not concerned any more, your Nature Physics evaluation is still awaited, please comment on how logarithmic advantage is demonstrated as part of fractal time advantage? the fractal machine concept is found to be a contribution of some other group, from Google scholar I found Dubois, D. (1992). The fractal machine. Presses Universitaires de Liège. Dubois, D. M., and G. Resconi. "Hyperincursive fractal machine beyond the Turing machine." Advances in Cognitive Engineering and Knowledge-based Systems. Int. Inst. for Adv. Studies in Syst. Res. and Cybernetics (1994): 212-216.this group is credited for the contribution Finally there are three other groups which contributed in developing this Fractal tape and machine concept, all those references are noted above and now included in the Wikipedia article. As noted above, the contribution of Bandyopadhyay group is much much later, from 1989 to 2003, there were several patents on this concept and all patents are now included in the Wikipedia article, it seems there are historically three phases of developments, first in the 1980s, then in the 1990s and finally in the late 2000--MasaComp (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are so interested, see this new move that inspired me to compile all these articles, I thought I would improve the article slowly as it happens in Wiki, but, I had to face this challenge. Anyway, you may like it which proves none of the Turing machine would work, then I searched Wiki and found not a single article on Fractal Time series and computation theories based on that. Noam Chomosky's thought is not new, if you search the Wiki article I have written, there are references of brain like "fractal machine" in the 1980s, but people ignored.--MasaComp (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC) http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-chomsky-on-where-artificial-intelligence-went-wrong/261637/[reply]

  • Delete This is original research at best and complete nonsense at worst. Chillum 01:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Chillum I cannot respond on non-arguments, but I can tell in the current form it covers all references of "Frequency Fractal" concept emerged from 1989 to 2014, and would sincerely urge you to read the current form, of the Wiki article perhaps you have not gone through the sincere effort I have made addressing every single concern of every single editor.--MasaComp (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AjoChhand_Machine&oldid=616600686"