Timeline for I found that a method I was hoping to publish is already known. What would be a proper way to retract emails sent to professors asking for help?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 5, 2020 at 7:36 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Nov 30, 2020 at 14:53 | comment | added | bishop | @Buraian Cite the proof you found in your article. Render that as PDF. In your email: "Professor ____, I've attached the PDF as requested. Since we last communicated, I have discovered my approach has already been published. I've cited in my PDF appropriately, and you may find that existing publication at: [URL]. Notwithstanding, are there any improvements you feel could be made to my article? Thank you for your time! Sincerely, _____" | |
| Nov 28, 2020 at 20:32 | comment | added | AaronD | Yep! It happened to me too. I had a project that needed to compress a large range of numbers to fit in a small space, and I only needed logarithmic accuracy, not linear. I thought that IEEE 754 was too complicated for what I was doing, and I didn't have a floating-point processor anyway, so I invented my own. By the time I had solved all the problems though, I had simply re-invented IEEE 754! (at least I understand it now) | |
| Nov 27, 2020 at 22:32 | comment | added | user110816 | How exactly do I phrase the email assuming that they are at the current stage of asking me the pdf? | |
| Nov 27, 2020 at 10:29 | history | answered | Mark | CC BY-SA 4.0 |