Timeline for Is copying the exact statement of a definition or a theorem considered plagiarism?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2021 at 9:27 | comment | added | gnasher729 | I'd say "the well-known Mean Value Theorem" doesn't need a citation because (a) it is well known, and (b) calling it well-known tells us that you didn't invent it, even if I personally didn't know it. | |
| May 21, 2021 at 4:13 | comment | added | Greg Martin | I think the answer would be better if "fake goal" were removed or reworded; it doesn't seem to add anything to the rest of the answer, and seems to minimize the seriousness of plagiarism. | |
| May 20, 2021 at 21:18 | vote | accept | open water | ||
| May 20, 2021 at 15:07 | comment | added | user9716869 - supports Ukraine | I do not oppose any of the further remarks by Buffy, Bob Brown and user3067860. However, I believe that it is useful to have all this information stated somewhere. | |
| May 20, 2021 at 14:23 | comment | added | user3067860 | @user9716869 math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1854/152317 Basically it depends on how much "idea" vs "expression" the theorem is. If it is the mathematical equivalent of simple language then it may not be copyrightable at all...even if the idea is quite complex, because ideas aren't copyrightable. | |
| May 20, 2021 at 12:43 | comment | added | Bob Brown | @user9716869 Copyright at least in general and in the United States, addresses republication of material, and so probably doesn't apply in the case of a student paper. It would apply in the case of a paper submitted for publication. | |
| May 20, 2021 at 11:07 | comment | added | Buffy | @user9716869, I strongly agree. Copyright must also be considered. It is a separate issue from plagiarism. But also note that there is a rule (usually included in copyright laws) that you can't copyright something that can be said in only one way. Some math falls under this rule. | |
| May 20, 2021 at 8:11 | comment | added | user9716869 - supports Ukraine | I believe there is one subtle issue. Copying a theorem is not plagiarism, provided that the source is cited. In fact, even copying ten theorems from a single source is not plagiarism, provided that the source is cited. However, from the perspective of the copyright holder (often a corporate entity) the latter may appear as a breach of copyright. Whether something like fair dealing/fair use exists and is applicable (and to what extent) depends on the jurisdictions involved. Thus, if one has an intention to "copy" a significant part of a scientific work, it may be safer to paraphrase. | |
| May 20, 2021 at 7:39 | comment | added | user128581 | 'unless you have something to add to their idea, there's scant point to changing the wording' Unless, for example, you're an undergraduate and one of the learning outcomes you're supposed to demonstrate that you've achieved is something equivalent to "students will be able to review and rewrite key theorems". Learning outcomes or items in marking rubrics that involve the word "understand" often are equivalent to that. | |
| May 20, 2021 at 2:49 | history | answered | paul garrett | CC BY-SA 4.0 |