中国学术评价网学术不端行为评议团公告(第7号)

中国学术评价网学术不端行为评议团已对洪荞网友举报方舟子《科学史上著名公案——数学天才伽罗华之死》一文涉嫌抄袭抄袭英文维基百科和美国普林斯顿大学、英国圣安德鲁大学相关网页（见【方舟子涉嫌抄袭剽窃】公示第三号，链接：[www.2250s.com]）一案进行了评议，认定方舟子的文章确系抄袭之作，现将评议书和抄袭剽窃认定证书予以公布，同时将其抄送相关机构。

中国学术评价网版主 柯华

2011年2月2日（北京时间）

文件编号：学评网201102021号

抄送对象：

被抄袭人英文维基百科、美国普林斯顿大学物理系、英国圣安德鲁斯大学数学和统计学院、《经济观察报》、《中国青年报》冰点周刊主编徐百科、《中国青年报》冰点周刊科学版编辑杨芳、《中国青年报》新闻热点、中国科技大学校友会、党政办、生命科学院、团委、研究生院、新闻中心、福建省云霄县县长信箱、云霄县委宣传部网站、云霄一中、云霄一中校友会、福建省图书馆读者活动中心、中国新闻网编辑部、中央电视台、新华社总编室、学术批评网版主、密歇根州立大学学术诚信办公室、密歇根州立大学主管研究生工作副校长、密歇根州立大学学生报纸主编、被抄袭人Stanton Braude、被抄袭期刊现任主编、美联社、《科学》杂志新闻在线、《自然》杂志新闻编辑、《自然》杂志Asia-Pacific correspondent、《纽约时报》新闻部、美国《剽窃》（Plagiary ）电子杂志编辑、科学诚信网



China Academic Integrity Review

[www.2250s.com]

方舟子抄袭案（第3号）
评议书

2011年1月12日，中国学术评价网版主柯华博士就洪荞网友举报方舟子发表于2009年3月30日《经济观察报》的文章《科学史上著名公案——数学天才伽罗华之死》抄袭英文维基百科和美国普林斯顿大学、英国圣安德鲁大学相关网页一事（见【方舟子涉嫌抄袭剽窃】公示第三号，链接：[www.2250s.com]）召集本评议团进行评议。本评议团由三人组成，分别为美国行为科学博士、化学博士和美国法律工作者。
中国学术评价网在组成评议团之前，曾将举报材料送达方舟子，请他做出辩解或提出反驳。但是，方舟子至今没有对此作出任何回应。
评议团成员分别审查了举报材料，并一致认为，举报人提供的证据清晰可信，超过了“优势证据”标准，尽到了初始举证责任。
举报人提供了被举报人署名的中文文章和被抄袭的英文资料的出处。经评议团查证，这些资料出处无误。被举报人的文章内容，没有超出这些资料的范围。
因此，评议团确认，有理由通过比对涉嫌抄袭文章和被抄袭英文资料，来判定被举报人是否利用这些资料而没有注明出处，或是否有抄袭行为。
举报人对照分析了涉嫌抄袭文章和被抄袭英文资料。评议团成员重复了举报人的对照分析，认同举报人的发现：涉嫌抄袭文章不但在行文结构上抄袭了上述英文资料，在修辞上也抄袭了这些资料，特别是Tony Rothman的文章。例如，方舟子文章出现的“《数学大师》的浪漫笔调激励了许多年轻人投身于数学研究，” 明显抄袭自 Tony Rothman引用的Freeman Dyson 的著作：“the romantic prose of E.T. Bell's Men of Mathematics, …has awakened many people of my generation to the beauties of mathematics… The legend … has fired the imagination of generations of mathematics students.”（Disturbing the Universe，New York: Harper and Row, 1979, p14.）。
评议团进一步认定，涉嫌抄袭文章的大多数语句与上述英文资料相同，可以肯定这些文字直接抄自这些资料。有些段落稍有不同，也显然是根据资料编译而成。不论是抄录还是编译，被举报人都应该注明资料出处。但是，被举报人没有注明资料出处。因此，被举报人的这种行为构成了抄袭。
评议团还注意到，正如举报人指出的，涉嫌抄袭文章中出现了数处误读资料导致的错误。评议人同意: 被举报人抄袭的资料是由用户自由编辑的百科全书性质的文件，属于第二手资料。假如被举报人是根据原始文献写成的文章，不可能出现那些常识性错误。鉴于被举报人没有证明他直接参考了原始文献，评议团只能断定他间接使用了第二手资料。无论是使用原始文献还是二手资料，被举报人都必须说明自己的资料来源，而被举报人没有这样做。
评议团最后确认，被举报人这种貌似编译而又不注明出处的抄袭手法，是典型的跨语际抄袭。
《中华人民共和国著作权法》、美国和大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国的版权法规对于合理、合法翻译外文作品有相似的界定，即未经著作权人许可，以改编、翻译等方式使用该作品的，属于侵犯版权行为。本评议团敦请柯华先生就方舟子侵权行为通知有关机构。
此致

中国学术评价网版主柯华博士
中国学术评价网
学术不端行为评议团全体成员
2011年2月1日


关于我们
中国学术评价网由分布在世界各地的中国学者自发组成，旨在保护中国学者免受来自跨国网络恐怖、暴力团伙的人格侮辱和人身攻击，保护其职业生涯和家庭生活免遭肆意破坏。我们为学者发表自己的意见和观点提供平台。目前，我们致力于对方舟子现象的研究，对方舟子的不端及非法行为进行记录、揭发、评议和举报。


China Academic Integrity Review

[www.2250s.com]


Fang Zhouzi’s plagiarism Case #3

The Verdict

February 1, 2011

Dr. Ke Hua,

On 01/12/2011, Dr. Ke Hua, the coordinator of China Academic Integrity Review called on a three person panel (the Panel) to review the complaint filed by Mr. Hong Qiao (the Complainant) that Dr. Fang Zhouzi, (the Accused) in his essay“A well-known Case in the History of Science: The Death of Galois,”published on 03/30/2009 in Economic Observation copied the relevant entry of Wikipedia, an on-line encyclopedia, and relevant webpage of Princeton University, the United States, and San Andrews University, the United Kingdom. See the Suspected Plagiarism Case No. 3, at [www.2250s.com]. The Panel involved one individual, who holds a PhD in behavioral science, an individual who holds a PhD in Chemistry, and an individual who has engaged in legal profession in the United States.
Prior to the review by the Panel, China Academic Integrity Review forwarded the complaint to the Accused , requesting his defense or rebuttal. However, the Accused has not responded to the request.
The Panel members, having individually reviewed the complaint and all corroborating evidence., unanimously agreed that the complainant supplied clear and convincing evidence, which surpassed the standard of preponderance of evidence, and therefore, fulfilled his initial burden of proof as required.
The Complainant provided the essay written by the Accused in the Chinese language and all related sources of information (the Material). The Panel further verified those sources and found them to be accurate and credible. Further, the Panel found that the contents of the essay by the Accused did not extend beyond those sources.
Therefore, the Panel established that it is reasonable to review the complaint and determine whether the Accused copied the Material without attribution to the sources, or whether his act as displayed in his essay constituted that of plagiarism, by comparing his essay and the Material.
The complainant compared and analyzed the essay by the Accused and Material he allegedly plagiarized. The Panel repeated the same approach and came to concur with the Complainant’s finding: The Accused in his essay not only copied above mentioned Material in terms of textual construction, but also rhetorical elements, particularly the essay by Tony Rothman. For example, in his essay, the Accused put: “The romantic prose inspired many young people to engage in the study of mathematics. Obviously, this passage was lifted from Tony Rothma’s quotation from Freeman Dyson’s work as the following : “the romantic prose of E.T. Bell’s Men of Mathematics, ... has awakened many people of my generation to the beauties of mathematics. ... The legend ... has fired the imagination of generations of mathematics students.”（Disturbing the Universe，New York: Harper and Row, 1979, p14.）
The Panel further established that most sentences and phrases which the Accused constructed in his essay were sufficiently similar, if not identical, to the Material, so as to lead to the determination that those sentences and phrases were copied from the Material. Some paragraphs appeared different, but were obviously translated from the Material. Whether those paragraphs were copied or translated, the Accused should have properly acknowledged the sources. However, the Accused did not do so. Therefore, the Accused’s act as displayed in his essay constituted plagiarism.
The Panel also noted that, as the complainant observed, the Accused made several errors in his essay as a result of his misreading of the Material. The panel concurred with the Complainant that the Material the Accused copied remained secondary sources. If the Accused relied on primary sources while writing his essay, he would have not made such “common sense” errors. However, in light of the fact that the Accused made no indication that he ever used any primary sources, the Panel could only come to the conclusion that he only indirectly relied on secondary sources. Further, no matter whether he used primary sources or secondary sources, the Accused was expected to acknowledge his sources. However, the Accused failed to do so.
Finally, the Panel established that the Accused’s plagiarism, which appeared like a translation, but carried no acknowledgement of his sources, may be seen as a classical example of “interlingual plagiarism.”
China’s copyright laws, and relevant laws and regulations in the United States and the United Kingdom all have similar provisions concerning translations of foreign language works. These laws and regulations all stipulate similarly that verbatim, unacknowledged translation, with no attribution given to the original author constitute plagiarism and violation of the author’s copyright. In this connection, the Panel urges Dr. Ke Hua to notify relevant organizations of Mr. Fang’s violation of copyright laws.

The Academic Misconduct Assessment Panel
China Academic Integrity Review

About Us
China Academic Integrity Review (AIR-China) is formed by a group of Chinese scholars from all over the world after the world-astonishing event involving internationally-acclaimed urologist Xiao Chuanguo and self-assumed science cop Fang Zhouzi. Our mission is to safeguard Chinese scholars’ human dignity, academic reputation, and legal rights from harassment, intimidation, threats, and terror by a certain transnational internet group, as well as from unwarranted and baseless attacks by laypersons who are not in the academic circle but use anonymous posts on the internet and/or sensational journalism to belittle Chinese scholars' achievements. We provide a platform for scholars to express their views on related issues.

方舟子抄袭剽窃认定证书链接：[www.2250s.com]
Link to Certificate of Plagiarism for Fang Zhouzi: [www.2250s.com]


【方舟子涉嫌抄袭剽窃】公示第三号（举报人：洪荞）

【说明： 2011年1月1日下午9:59（北京时间），本人以《就〈科学史上著名公案——数学天才伽罗华之死〉一文涉嫌抄袭的通知》为题，给方舟子发出如下邮件：

方舟子先生台鉴：

我是“中国学术评价”网站“方舟子系列”专题“抄袭剽窃”专辑主持人。日前收到网友洪荞的文章，《让方舟子自己说说他这是不是抄袭》，其中认为您在2009年3月在《经济观察报》上发表的《科学史上著名公案——数学天才伽罗华之死》一文，系抄袭自英文维基百科和普林斯顿大学、英国圣安德鲁大学相关网页。

经认真核对，仔细比较，本人认为洪荞的指控成立。按照“中国学术评价”网站《抄袭剽窃案例认定程序》（见：[www.2250s.com]），本人现将洪荞的文章转发给您，请您务必在三天内为自己的行为作出解释或者辩护。本人将根据您的回复，决定是否将其提交本网站评议团裁决。逾期不予回复，此案将自动按照《抄袭剽窃案例认定程序》处理。

特此告知。

顺祝

新禧！

亦明 谨上
2011年1月1日

至今，五日期限【据《程序》修改稿】已到，但方舟子仍未回信。根据本网站《抄袭剽窃案例认定程序》，现将洪荞网友的举报文章公布出来，提请版主召集评议团就此举报是否成立予以评议。同时，欢迎诸位网友对此案踊跃发表自己的意见。

亦明
《中国学术评价网•方舟子系列专题•抄袭剽窃专辑》主持人
2011年1月6日】

让方舟子自己说说他这是不是抄袭

洪荞
2010/12/22

方舟子于2009年3月在《经济观察报》上发表了“科学史上著名公案——数学天才伽罗华之死”。这篇文章后来改名“数学天才伽罗华之死”被收录在《爱因斯坦信上帝吗？——方舟子解读科学史著名谜团》一书。文章讲的是数学天才伽罗华与人决斗身亡的故事。经笔者查证，这篇文章的内容几乎全部来自下面三篇文章：

[1] [en.wikipedia.org]
[2] [www.physics.princeton.edu]
[3] [www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk]

这里[1]是WiKi2009年2月5日的版本，[2，3]是[1]中列出的链接。由此看来,“公案”一文充其量是编译,把这样的文章称为原创无疑是造假。现在的问题是，“公案”仅仅是编译还是涉嫌抄袭呢？按方舟子的说法，“判断科普文章、随笔是否抄袭，不在于是否一一标注了文献，而在于文章的主旨、写法和语句是否雷同”，那么下面我们就按照主旨、写法和语句三个方面来看一看“公案”是不是够得上抄袭。

需要声明的是，由于“我打击学术腐败，主要靠的是一种人格的力量”，本文无意讨论方舟子的动机，人格等问题。但由于方舟子是“黑夜中的灯火”，我们还是应该考虑提高标准，就象他曾经说过的：“不管是因为什么原因撰写科普著作的，不管乐不乐意，既然承担了下来，就应该老老实实地写，而不应该靠抄袭来投机取巧。身为院士，更应该严格要求自己。试想，如果一个爱好科学的青少年读者在阅读了两本著作，发现其雷同之后，误以为书也可以靠抄袭来写，‘院士干得我也干得’，那会是多么恶劣的影响！”

好了，言归正传，先说文章的主旨。“公案”一文我们可以说是在介绍历史解读谜团。而[1]是WiKi关于伽罗华网页，[3]是美国一个著名数学史网站上关于伽罗华网页，两个都是在介绍历史。[2]的作者是普林斯顿物理系的一个教授，其内容是探讨这段历史的传说与事实。同“公案”一样，这三篇文章的对象都是普通读者，都是在介绍伽罗华的生平。由此看来，主旨一致是不争的事实了。

现在我们再来看看写法。上面所列的三篇文章基本上是按时间顺序来叙述伽罗华的生平，因此对他的数学工作和政治活动是交替地介绍。反观“公案”一文，读了之后给人一种杂乱无章的感觉。其叙述既不是按时间顺序，也不是以数学政治或事件等主题为顺序。比如关于决斗原因的讨论竟然分散在第四，第七，和第九三个不同的段落里。那么是不是说“公案”一文的结构是其作者自己设计的呢？同WiKi对比我们很容易发现“公案”的第五，第六和第七段与WiKi的“政治狂热”和“最后的日子”两部分有着完全相同的结构（当然我们要除掉WiKi中的数学部分）。两者的顺序都是先讲法国当时的历史背景，然后伽罗华如何卷入政治，最后是决斗的前因后果等（句子的雷同我们下面另外讨论）。由此我们可以看到“公案”主要部分的雏形。当然只凭这一条我们还不能马上断言“公案”是抄袭之作。但是如果我们再把“公案”的前四段与[2]的前三段相比较，我们马上就会有一种原来如此的感觉。请看（中英文的原文附在最后）：

“公案”的写法：先是《数学大师》一书中的描写，然后是《数学大师》的浪漫笔调激励了年轻人，最后是1832年5月30日伽罗华决斗身亡

[2]的写法：先是1832年5月30日伽罗华决斗身亡，然后是《数学大师》的浪漫笔调激励了年轻人，最后是《数学大师》一书中的的描写。

不仅结构雷同，而且方舟子对《数学大师》一书中段落的选择以及对《数学大师》那“浪漫”的形容也与[2]完全一致。由此再说“公案”的构思是原创就很难说得通了，因为不可能你和人家都恰好读了相同的一段，都觉得很浪漫，都看到了它对年轻人的激励。通过下面对文字的比较我们会看到方舟子的确是看到了[2]的。对人家这么动人的开头方舟子拿来就用，使得读者以为是方舟子看出了《数学大师》的浪漫笔调，以为自己是被方舟子的文字所感动，这不是对读者的欺骗还是什么呢？用方舟子的话说：“何谓创作？就跟research paper一样，必须是真正属于自己的东西是也，即使英雄所见略同，也绝不会大段大段的相似。整段抄别人的，如果不注明，甚至连个引号都不用，在读者看来，自然而然会把它当成你自己的东西，被揭发出来，就是抄袭：第一侵害了原作者，第二欺骗了读者，第三骗取了名声”。我们已经看到了，“公案”前四段的写法抄袭了[2]，接着三段的写法抄袭了[1]，而剩余的三段则是由[1，2，3]中的其它部分拼凑而成。按照方舟子的原则，“公案”当属剽窃无疑。现在回过头来看，“公案”的杂乱无章正是这种拼凑的结果。

虽然结构雷同，但“公案”并不是一字不差地完全照抄我们上面提到的[1，2]的章节。“公案”的做法是以这些章节为基础，再把[1，2，3]中的一些其它细节加进来。这事实上是方诌子科普的标准模式。别人这么做时方舟子曾尖锐地批评：“如此大面积的照抄照搬，即使注明了出处也有剽窃之嫌，更何况对原作者、原文只字不提，以“有关的文章”一语带过，让读者以为是他自己根据原始材料综述而成的，这不是剽窃是什么？我花了许多时间看许多资料费心构思写成的文章，就怎么轻松地像无主之物一般粘贴复制过去，最后加一段感想就成了自己的东西，整个写作过程估计不会超过一个小时，这样的文章未免太好写，这样的教授未免太好当了吧？”如此的义正言辞，可到了方舟子自己抄袭的时侯，这些话就全都无影无踪了。

现在我们来比较一下语句方面的雷同。我们还是先听一听方舟子是怎么指责他人的：“杨雄里院士抄袭的方法，基本上是忠实地翻译，个别地方对语序做了改动，结果反而与原意不符，出现了错误”，“抄袭的痕迹是非常明显的，而且秋实在抄时，故意做了篡改”，“上面这段话，曹文只是把高文略做改动而已，调换了句子顺序而已”。我们想要看看的是这些话能不能用在方舟子身上。因为这部分比较长，所以被附在文章的后面。这里我们只看几个例子（全部来自[1]）。

1832年5月30日清晨，伽罗华在决斗中被击中腹部，被路过的农民送往医院。第二天早晨10点他死于医院，临终前拒绝接受神甫的祈祷，对他的弟弟阿尔佛 雷德说：“不要哭，阿尔佛雷德！我需要全部的勇气在20岁时死去。”
On 30 May 1832, early in the morning, he was shot in the abdomen and died the following day at ten in the Cochin hospital (probably of peritonitis) after refusing the offices of a priest. He was 20 years old. His last words to his brother Alfred were: Don't cry, Alfred! I need all my courage to die at twenty.

但是到了1830年，议会中的自由派占了多数，查理十世面临被废黜的危险，于是他在这一年的7月颁布敕令，这激起了街头革命。查理十世被迫逊位，议会推举 路易－菲利浦继承王位。
and by 1830 the opposition liberal party became the majority. Charles, faced with abdication, staged a coup d'état, and issued his notorious July Ordinances, touching off the July Revolution which ended with Louis-Philippe becoming king.

伽罗华高举匕首高呼“为路易－菲利浦国王干杯”，第二天以“企图暗杀国王”的罪名被捕。一个多月后被宣告无罪获释。7月14日“巴士底日”（后来的法国国 庆节）那天，伽罗华身穿炮兵队制服，携带步枪、手枪和匕首，与法律系的学生杜沙特雷一起带领群众在街上示威，再次被捕，被判入狱6个月。1832年4月 29日伽罗华获释。
Galois proposed a toast to King Louis-Philippe with a dagger above his cup, which was interpreted as a threat against the king's life. He was arrested the following day, but was later acquitted on June 15. On the following Bastille Day, Galois was at the head of a protest, wearing the uniform of the disbanded artillery, and came heavily armed with several pistols, a rifle, and a dagger. For this, he was again arrested, this time sentenced to six months in prison for illegally wearing a uniform. He was released on April 29, 1832.

方舟子曾明确指出：“有可能构成语句方面的剽窃的是那些有特异性、有一定的长度的语句，由不同的人来书写会有不同的表述，不可能独立地碰巧写出雷同的句子”。 看了上面的例子，方舟子会说什么呢？

方舟子对抄袭质疑曾这样回答：“说是“翻译”，就请把我翻译的“原文”给列出来一一做个对比，看我是如何“翻译”的，否则乃是地地道道的无中生有的诽 谤”，“请松鼠会具体地证明我哪篇文章是“直接是英语文章翻过来的”。我指控别人抄袭，都是列出了证据的，... 松鼠会想要反过来指控我抄袭，也应该学着证明之，可别自己抄袭英语文章抄惯了，就想当然地以为别人也难免和你一样”。对这次抄袭质疑，方舟子的这个回答已 经不再管用了。笔者期待方舟子能给出一个更有创意的辩解，以娱乐广大网民。

最后指出“公案”中的一个小错误：“其实她是伽罗华出狱后居住的旅店的医生的女儿”。看了这句话读者肯定会感到奇怪，旅店要医生干什么？WiKi的原文是 the daughter of the physician at the hostel where Galois remained during the final months of his life。如果把hostel当成旅店那是典型的望文生义。在WiKi上查hostel我们可以看到In a few countries, the word hostel sometimes also refers to establishments providing longer-term accommodation (often to specific classes of clientèle such as nurses, students, drug addicts, court defendants on bail) where the hostels are sometimes run by Housing Associations and charities. 如果方舟子认真一点，从[2，3]就可以看到事实上为了避免霍乱伽罗华和其它犯人们被安置到这个hostel(当时伽罗华并未被释放），而那里有个医生。 这个例子也从一个侧面证明了方舟子对他写的这个故事一无所知，因此文章不可能是他的原创。

作为结尾，我们当然还是要再列上几句方舟子的名言：
这种文章，只要读得懂英文就可以写， 像这样翻译外文资料，拼凑起来就当成自己的文章的，在当前中国学界，是并不罕见的现象。

抄了就是抄了，整理不能抄袭文字，你要在美国的话，你会被开除的。当然在中国，天下文章一大抄，你习惯了，就觉得没错。

如果真的只有一小部分抄袭，甚至只抄了一、两段的话，就不能算抄袭吗？答案是否定的。2002年，美国著名历史学家安布罗斯的一本畅销著作被发现有几小段 直接抄自另一位历史学家的著作，虽然他用脚注注明了出处，还是全美舆论大哗，被指控是抄袭。可见，即使注明了出处也必须对引用别人的部分用自己的语言进行 复述，才不会被视为抄袭。

我被人称为“学术打假人士”，整天揭发别人抄袭，如果自己也干抄袭的勾当，这样的“人”是该被分到最卑劣的一群里头去的。
让我们问一下方舟子，你承认你的这篇文章是抄袭之作吗？


附件 1. 文字的对比

其中最令人心酸的莫过于对在20岁时死于决斗的法国数学天才伽罗华的描写：在决斗的前夜（1832年5月29日晚），伽罗华预料到自己将会死去，通宵达旦 奋笔疾书，与时间赛跑，力图把他的所有数学成果纪录下来，时不时在一旁写下“我没有时间”、“我没有时间”。贝尔说：“他在黎明前那些绝望的最后时刻写下 的东西，将会使一代代数学家忙上几百年。”“他一劳永逸地发现了一个折磨了数学家几个世纪的谜团的答案：在什么条件下一个方程有解？” The most memorable chapter ... describes the life and death of the French mathematician Galois, who was killed in a duel at the age of twenty. ... All night long he had spent the fleeting hours feverishly dashing off his scientific last will and testament, writing against time to glean a few of the great things in his teeming mind before the death he saw could overtake him. Time after time he broke off to scribble in the margin "I have not time; I have not time," and passed on to the next frantically scrawled outline. What he wrote in those last desperate hours before the dawn will keep generations of mathematicians busy for hundreds of years. He had found, once and for all, the true solution of a riddle which had tormented mathematicians for centuries: underwhat conditions can an equation be solved?[2]

《数学大师》的浪漫笔调激励了许多年轻人投身于数学研究，the romantic prose of E.T. Bell's Men of Mathematics, ... has awakened many people of my generation to the beauties of mathematics. ... The legend ... has fired the imagination of generations of mathematics students.[2]
后来的科普文章在介绍伽罗华时也多沿用贝尔的描述。Much of the drama surrounding the legend of his death has been attributed to one source, Eric Temple Bell's Men of Mathematics.[1]
被20世纪著名数学家赫曼•威尔称为“可能是人类全部文献中最重大的一篇文稿”。 Hermann Weyl, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, said of this testament, "This letter, if judged by the novelty and profundity of ideas it contains, is perhaps the most substantial piece of writing in the whole literature of mankind."[1]

群论的创建足以使数学家忙上几百年，但并非一夜之间的事。Galois had indeed helped to create a field which would keep mathematicians busy for hundreds of years but not "in those last desperate hours before the dawn."[2]
自17岁起伽罗华就在从事这方面的研究，并写了几篇论文, Galois had been submitting papers on the subject since the age of 17.[2]
他的遗书中的相当篇幅是在为这些论文做注释和更正。至于那句著名的“我没有时间”，则只在遗书手稿的旁边注释中出现了一次：“要完成这个证明还需要做些工 作。我没有时间。” During the course of the night he annotated and made corrections to some of his papers. He comes across a note ... writes directly beneath it: "There are a few things left to be completed in this proof. I have not the time". This famous inscription appears only once [2]

1832年5月30日清晨，伽罗华在决斗中被击中腹部，被路过的农民送往医院。第二天早晨10点他死于医院，临终前拒绝接受神甫的祈祷，对他的弟弟阿尔佛 雷德说：“不要哭，阿尔佛雷德！我需要全部的勇气在20岁时死去。”On 30 May 1832, early in the morning, he was shot in the abdomen and died the following day at ten in the Cochin hospital (probably of peritonitis) after refusing the offices of a priest. He was 20 years old. His last words to his brother Alfred were: Don't cry, Alfred! I need all my courage to die at twenty.[1] Evariste Galois confronted an adversary in a duel to be fought with pistols, and was shot through the stomach. Hours later, lying wounded and alone, Galois was found by a passing peasant. [2]
但是阿尔佛雷德认为他是被谋杀的， Alfred Galois, unjustifiably in his view, did maintain that his older brother was murdered.[2]

他生活在法国历史上一个动荡不安的历史时期。Galois lived during a time of political turmoil in France.[1]
1815年，拿破仑在滑铁卢惨败后，法王路易十八复位，1824年路易十八死后，由其弟弟查理十世继位。The year 1815 saw the famous one hundred days. Napoleon entered Paris on March 20, was defeated at Waterloo on 18 June and abdicated for the second time on 22 June. Louis XVIII was reinstated as King but died in September 1824, Charles X becoming the new King.[3]
但是到了1830年，议会中的自由派占了多数，查理十世面临被废黜的危险，于是他在这一年的7月颁布敕令，这激起了街头革命。查理十世被迫逊位，议会推举 路易－菲利浦继承王位。and by 1830 the opposition liberal party became the majority. Charles, faced with abdication, staged a coup d'état, and issued his notorious July Ordinances, touching off the July Revolution which ended with Louis-Philippe becoming king.[1]

“七月革命”爆发时，伽罗华正在巴黎师范学校读书，该校校长为阻止学生上街作战，关闭校门，使伽罗华失去参加革命的机会。伽罗华在报上发表来信攻击校长， 被开除。 The July revolution of 1830 reared its head. The Director of l'Ecole Normale, M. Guigniault, locked the students in so that they would not be able to fight on the streets. Galois ... in doing so missed the revolution. ... Galois saw his chance for attack and jumped into the squabble with a blistering letter to the Gazette des Ecoles. ... the result is what might have been anticipated: Galois was expelled.[2]
在正式被开除之前，伽罗华已离开学校，参加拥护共和的国民卫队炮兵队，Even before his expulsion from Normale was to take effect on January 4, 1831, Galois joined the staunchly Republican artillery unit of the National Guard.[1]
并加入当时最激进的秘密革命组织“人民之友社”。 Galois probably joined the Society of Friends of the People, one of the most extreme republican secret societies [2]
不久，政府解散国民卫队炮兵队，并逮捕其19名军官，指控他们阴谋推翻政府。这些军官后被无罪释放。1831年5月9日，在庆祝这些军官获释的宴会上，伽 罗华高举匕首高呼“为路易－菲利浦国王干杯”，第二天以“企图暗杀国王”的罪名被捕。一个多月后被宣告无罪获释。7月14日“巴士底日”（后来的法国国庆 节）那天，伽罗华身穿炮兵队制服，携带步枪、手枪和匕首，与法律系的学生杜沙特雷一起带领群众在街上示威，再次被捕，被判入狱6个月。1832年4月29 日伽罗华获释，1个月后就迎来了那场致命的决斗。on December 31, 1830,the artillery of the National Guard was disbanded out of fear that they might destabilize the government. At around the same time, nineteen officers of Galois' former unit were arrested and charged with conspiracy to overthrow the government.In April, all nineteen officers were acquitted of all charges, and on May 9, 1831, a banquet was celebrated in their honor, ... Galois proposed a toast to King Louis-Philippe with a dagger above his cup, which was interpreted as a threat against the king's life. He was arrested the following day, but was later acquitted on June 15. On the following Bastille Day, Galois was at the head of a protest, wearing the uniform of the disbanded artillery, and came heavily armed with several pistols, a rifle, and a dagger. For this, he was again arrested, this time sentenced to six months in prison for illegally wearing a uniform. He was released on April 29, 1832 ... A month after his release, on May 30, was Galois' fatal duel. [1]

其实她是伽罗华出狱后居住的旅店的医生的女儿。伽罗华为了她主动挑起决斗。和伽罗华决斗的人是谁？伽罗华在遗书中说约他决斗的是两名“爱国者”。根据大仲 马的回忆录，决斗者是当初被捕的19名军官之一德艾尔宾维尔。但是根据决斗几天后一家报纸的报道，与伽罗华决斗的是和他一起被捕的“人民之友社”成员、他 的好友杜沙特雷。 the woman he was in love with was apparently a certain Mademoiselle Stéphanie-Felicie Poterin du Motel, the daughter of the physician at the hostel where Galois remained during the final months of his life ... and this might have prompted him to provoke the duel himself on her behalf. ... As to his opponent in the duel, Alexandre Dumas names Pescheux d'Herbinville, one of the nineteen artillery officers ... However, Dumas is alone in this assertion, and extant newspaper clippings from only a few days after the duel give a description of his opponent which is inconsistent with d'Herbinville, and more accurately describes one of Galois' Republican friends, most probably Ernest Duchatelet, who was also imprisoned with Galois on the same charges.[1]
Galois also writes another, similar letter ... I have been provoked by two patriots [2]
由于是朋友决斗，所以没有采取手枪对射的方式，而是采用“俄罗斯轮盘赌”，用枪口互相顶着对方开枪，其中只有一把枪装着子弹。 because of their old friendship they could not bear to look at one another and left the decision to blind fate. At point-blank range they were each armed with a pistol and fired. Only one pistol was charged ... deciding the outcome by a gruesome version of Russian roulette [2]
第一次是在1829年，在他中学最后一年，提交了关于群论初步研究结果的论文，审稿人是著名数学家柯西。柯西意识到这一论文的重要性，曾在一封信中提及将 在科学院的会议上对之做介绍。但是在那次会议上柯西却只介绍自己的工作。为何柯西没有按计划介绍伽罗华的工作，成了一个谜。有人猜测是因为柯西建议伽罗华 将其研究写成更完整的论文参加科学院的数学大奖赛。伽罗华于1830年2月提交论文参加该大奖赛，寄给当时科学院终身秘书傅立叶，但傅立叶在5月去世，伽 罗华的论文也没了着落。On May 25 and June 1, 1829, while still only 17, he submitted to the Academy his first researches on the solubility of equations of prime degree. Cauchy was appointed referee. ... a letter of Cauchy ...proves that ... he had planned to present them to the Academy in January 1830. ... Cauchy was ... very likely aware of their importance. At the following session on 25 January, however, Cauchy, while presenting his own memoir, did not present Galois's work. Taton hypothesizes that between January 18 and January 25, Cauchy persuaded Galois to combine his researches into a single memoir to be submitted for the Grand Prize in Mathematics, for which the deadline was March 1. Whether or not Cauchy actually made the suggestion cannot yet be proved, but in February Galois did submit such an entry to Fourier in his capacity of perpetual secretary of mathematics and physics for the Academy. ... the death of Fourier on May 16, 1830. Galois's entry could not be found among Fourier's papers. [2]
1831年1月，应泊松的邀请，伽罗华再次向科学院投稿。但泊松又以伽罗华的工作无法理解为由退稿。接到退稿时伽罗华正因政治活动入狱，Simeon Poisson asked him to submit his work on the theory of equations, which he submitted on January 17. Around July 4, Poisson declared Galois' work "incomprehensible", ... the rejection report ... took some time for it to reach Galois, which it finally did in October that year, while he was imprisoned. [1]
在一次酒醉后曾试图用匕首自杀，被同牢犯人制止。While in Sainte-Pélagie prison Galois attempted to commit suicide by stabbing himself with a dagger but the other prisoners prevented him.[3]
有两、三千名共和党人参加了他的葬礼。two or three thousand republicans later attended the funeral[2]

伽罗华被埋在一块普通墓地，很快就被人遗忘，现在已找不到其坟墓。
Galois's body was interred in a common burial ground of which no trace remains today.[2]


附件 2.

“公案”的开头：

美国数学家埃里克•坦普尔•贝尔在1937年出版了一部至今还在印刷的科普名著《数学大师》，其中最令人心酸的莫过于对在20岁时死于决斗的法国数学天才 伽罗华的描写：在决斗的前夜（1832年5月29日晚），伽罗华预料到自己将会死去，通宵达旦奋笔疾书，与时间赛跑，力图把他的所有数学成果纪录下来，时 不时在一旁写下“我没有时间”、“我没有时间”。贝尔说：“他在黎明前那些绝望的最后时刻写下的东西，将会使一代代数学家忙上几百年。”“他一劳永逸地发 现了一个折磨了数学家几个世纪的谜团的答案：在什么条件下一个方程有解？”

《数学大师》的浪漫笔调激励了许多年轻人投身于数学研究，甚至成为著名数学家，其中包括诺贝尔经济学奖获得者约翰•纳什。后来的科普文章在介绍伽罗华时也 多沿用贝尔的描述。据称，伽罗华在这一晚写就的几十页手稿开创了数学一个极为重要的分支——群论，被20世纪著名数学家赫曼•威尔称为“可能是人类全部文 献中最重大的一篇文稿”。还有一种说法是，由于伽罗华的不幸早逝，人类数学研究的进展推迟了几十年。

这些描写和评论都是为了增添天才早逝的悲剧色彩的夸大其词。群论的创建足以使数学家忙上几百年，但并非一夜之间的事。自17岁起伽罗华就在从事这方面的研 究，并写了几篇论文，送交法国科学院或在期刊上发表，其中有3篇在1830年发表。他的遗书中的相当篇幅是在为这些论文做注释和更正。至于那句著名的“我 没有时间”，则只在遗书手稿的旁边注释中出现了一次：“要完成这个证明还需要做些工作。我没有时间。”

1832年5月30日清晨，伽罗华在决斗中被击中腹部，被路过的农民送往医院。第二天早晨10点他死于医院，临终前拒绝接受神甫的祈祷，对他的弟弟阿尔佛 雷德说：“不要哭，阿尔佛雷德！我需要全部的勇气在20岁时死去。”按照伽罗华在决斗前夕留下的遗书中的说法，他是做为“一个下流的风骚女人的牺牲品”而 死去的，但是阿尔佛雷德认为他是被谋杀的，后来也有很多人怀疑这是一个保王党清除激进的共和党人的政治阴谋。

[2] 的开头：
In Paris, on the obscure morning of May 30, 1832, near a pond not far from the pension Sieur Faultrier, Evariste Galois confronted an adversary in a duel to be fought with pistols, and was shot through the stomach. Hours later, lying wounded and alone, Galois was found by a passing peasant. He was taken to the Hospital Cochin where he died the following day in the arms of his brother Alfred, after having refused the services of a priest. Had Galois lived another five months, until October 25, he would have attained the age of twenty-one. The legend of Evariste Galois, one of the creators of group theory, has fired the imagination of generations of mathematics students. Many of us have experienced the excitement of Freeman Dyson who writes:

In those days, my head was full of the romantic prose of E.T. Bell's Men of Mathematics, a collection of biographies of the great mathematicians. This is a splendid book for a young boy to read (unfortunately, there is not much in it to inspire a girl, with Sonya Kovalevsky allotted only half a chapter), and it has awakened many people of my generation to the beauties of mathematics. The most memorable chapter is called "Genius and Stupidity" and describes the life and death of the French mathematician Galois, who was killed in a duel at the age of twenty.

Dyson goes on to quote Bell's famous description of Galois's last night before the duel:
All night long he had spent the fleeting hours feverishly dashing off his scientific last will and testament, writing against time to glean a few of the great things in his teeming mind before the death he saw could overtake him. Time after time he broke off to scribble in the margin "I have not time; I have not time," and passed on to the next frantically scrawled outline. What he wrote in those last desperate hours before the dawn will keep generations of mathematicians busy for hundreds of years. He had found, once and for all, the true solution of a riddle which had tormented mathematicians for centuries: under what conditions can an equation be solved?

公示链接：[www.2250s.com]

方舟子抄袭案（第3号）
评议书（第1号）

本评议人认为举报人的证据充分，论证合理。首先，举报人的证据可靠，翔实，直接。所有引文均引自涉嫌抄袭文章和上述有关资料来源。我认为，举报人的证据清晰可信，超过了“优势证据”标准，尽到举报人初始的举证责任。

举报人查证，涉嫌抄袭的文章内容几乎全部来自下面三篇文章：

en.wikipedia.org；
www.physics.princeton.edu；
www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk

其次，举报人的论证合理。判定抄袭，原则上要根据作品的主旨，结构和语句来判断。举报人还引用被举报人的说法，“判断科普文章、随笔是否抄袭，不在于是否一一标注了文献，而在于文章的主旨、写法和语句是否雷同。” 涉嫌抄袭文章和上述三篇文章题材相同。主旨也并无二致。读者对象也是一般大众，而非数学专业人士。涉嫌抄袭文章的实质内容，没有超出这三篇文章涉及的范围。因此，通过对照涉嫌抄袭文章和上述三篇文章，来判定被举报人是否抄袭，是合乎情理的。

举报人从主旨、写法和语句三个方面详细对照涉嫌抄袭文章和上述三篇文章。举报人发现，涉嫌抄袭文章的一些段落，上述原文的相关段落的结构完全相同，措词写法也相似。有些段落，甚至可以说是资料来源的逐字翻译。举报人特别指出，一些复杂的长句，语句和英文原文高度相似。而两个不同语种的作者，如果不是抄袭，很难写出这样高度相似的长句。正如举报人指出的，被举报人也持这样的看法。然而，涉嫌抄袭文章，即使在这些高度相似的地方， 也没有注明自己的文字实际上是翻译。

鉴于被举报人没有注明他的文章是翻译，他的行为也就构成了抄袭。 即使假设被举报人文章是翻译，由于他没有注明出处，根据美国大学有关翻译注明出处的规定，他的行为仍然视为抄袭。例如，西佛罗里达大学规定：

Translation from one language to another is not using your own words and ideas and is treated as plagiarism. Translations fall under the guidelines for quotations, summaries and paraphrasing.
(See [uwf.edu])

被举报人这种貌似编译而又不注明出处的抄袭手法，是典型的“跨语际抄袭”。

Bilingual plagiarism is the act of passing off the work of others (in particular, the writing of others) as one’s own and disguising the plagiarism by intentionally translating the work into another language without giving due attribution to the original author.
（参见Carmel McNaught and David M. Kennedy, “Bilingual Plagiarism in the Academic World,”in Ethical Practices and Implications in Distance Learning, IGI Global, 2009.）

本评议人还注意到，举报人专门引述了被举报人谴责抄袭行为的原话，表明即使按照被举报人的界定，他的做法也属于抄袭。举报信已经提交被举报人。但是，被举报人没有反驳举报中的指控，也没有就自己言行的不一作出任何解释。被举报人在有机会反驳和解释的时候，放弃自己的责任。因此，裁决机构可以根据举报人现有的证据判定被举报人的行为构成了抄袭。

方舟子抄袭案（第3号）
评议书（第2号）

对于洪荞举报方舟子“科学史上著名公案——数学天才伽罗华之死”一文抄袭的评议意见
洪荞在“让方舟子自己说说他这是不是抄袭 ”一文（以下简称：洪文）中指称方舟子发表在《经济观察报》及收入《爱因斯 坦信上帝吗？——方舟子解读科学史著名谜团》一书中的“科学史上著名公案——数学天才伽罗华之死”（方文）一文抄袭自英文维基百科网页（引文1[a]）及该网页列出的两个链接（引文2，作者Tony Rothman ；引文3©）。经过认真审阅洪文、方文及相关引文，评议人认为洪文提供的证据是真实和充分的，洪文认定方文抄袭的结论是成立的。
（一）根据洪文列举的证据，可以看出方文大部分是源于引文1[a]的内容、部分段落源于引文2经过编译而成。然而方文中没有任何文字提及引文1[a]及引文2的出处。这是一种把他人的作品改头换面据为己有的行为，所以洪文认定方文抄袭是合理的。
（二）除了洪文中列举的方文与引文1[a]和2中大量语句、结构及叙述事实相似乃至雷同之外，方文中出现了数处误读引文1[a]而导致的特征性错误，从而进一步确证了方文抄袭的结论。引文1[a]是由用户自由编辑的百科全书性质的文件，属于二次文献。如果方文是根据原始文献而非引文１这种二次文献归纳而成，是不可能出现如下列举的常识性错误：
1．正如洪文指出的：方文中“其实她是伽罗华出狱后居住的旅店的医生的女儿”是根据引文1[a]中“the daughter of the physician at the hostel where Galois remained during the final months of his life。”而“望文生义”导致的错误翻译。实际上，如果仔细阅读作为引文1[a]的引用文献引文2就会知道：伽罗华的最后一段监禁（1832年3月16日至4月29日）是在Sieur Faultrier的一个疗养院中，而卷入伽罗华感情生活的女性是这家疗养院的驻院医生的女儿。
（参见引文2：“...March 16, 1832, when he was transferred to the pension Sieur Faultrier. Ironically enough, this was to prevent the prisoners from being exposed to the cholera epidemic then sweeping Paris.”；“she was Stephanie-Felicie Poterin du Motel, daughter of Jean-Louis Auguste Poterin du Motel, a resident physician at the Sieur Faultrier, where Galois stayed the last months of his life.”）
(译文：“...1832年3月16日，他（伽罗华）被转送到Sieur Faultrier休养院。很讽刺的是，这次转送是为了防止囚犯们感染巴黎当时流行的霍乱。”“她是Stephanie-Felicie Poterin du Motel，Sieur Faultrier （疗养院）驻院医师Jean-Louis Auguste Poterin du Motel的女儿，伽罗华在生命中最后数月住在那里”。
需要指出的是，引文1[a]根据引文2而表述的“the daughter of the physician at the hostel where Galois remained during the final months of his life。”是可以接受的。请注意“final months”所用的是复数。伽罗华从出狱到死亡只有1个月时间，方文却特意强调“出狱后居住的”，显然方文作者不仅缺乏对其文章中主角伽罗华生平的基本了解，同时英文阅读理解犯了错误，因为即使不知道“hostel”的确切含义，从“final months”中的复数用法也可推断这肯定不是出狱后发生的。如果通过阅读原始文献而整理成的文章是不会出现方文中这样望文生义的错误。
2．方文的下面一个错误也是由于编译引文1[a]而产生的：
方文：“和伽罗华决斗的人是谁？伽罗华在遗书中说约他决斗的是两名“爱国者”。根据大仲 马的回忆录，决斗者是当初被捕的19名军官之一德艾尔宾维尔。但是根据决斗几天后一家报纸的报道，与伽罗华决斗的是和他一起被捕的“人民之友社”成员、他 的好友杜沙特雷。”
引文１[a]：“As to his opponent in the duel, Alexandre Dumas names Pescheux d'Herbinville, one of the nineteen artillery officers ... However, Dumas is alone in this assertion, and extant newspaper clippings from only a few days after the duel give a description of his opponent which is inconsistent with d'Herbinville, and more accurately describes one of Galois' Republican friends, most probably Ernest Duchatelet, who was also imprisoned with Galois on the same charges.[1] Galois also writes another, similar letter ... I have been provoked by two patriots [2] ”
而事实上，“决斗几天后一家报纸”的报道并没有给出决斗对手的名字，在该报道中只是用以下语句形容这个对手“one of his old friends, a young man like himself, like himself a member of the Society of Friends of the People”“ L.D., his adversary, is a bit younger”（译文：“对手是像他（伽罗华）一样的年轻人，一样是人民之友协会成员”；“L.D., 他的对手比他年轻一点”）”）。而正是引文2的作者Rothman根据以上叙述在引文2中第一次推测这篇报道中名字缩写为L.D.的对手是Ernest Armand Duchatelet。事实上，对于伽罗华的研究者们来说，决斗对手的真实身份至今仍然是个谜。（参见引文1[a]：Given the conflicting information available, the true identity of his killer may well be lost to history.（根据治现存相互矛盾的资料，杀手的真实身份仍迷失在历史中）。
(三) 方文开篇提到了贝尔的《数学大师》一书（贝文[d]）及“后来的科普文章在介绍伽罗华时也多延用贝尔的描述”。然而，方文除了转引贝书中关于叙述的伽罗华最后一夜的内容外（引文2开篇部分引述过贝文这部分内容），其它大部分事实与《数学大师》中涉及伽罗华的部分完全不同。例如决斗的方式：贝文377页[d]是这样描述的：“The dual was with pistols at twenty five paces. Galois fell, shot through the intestines”（译文：决斗是用手枪距离25步远进行的，伽罗华倒下了，被射穿了肠子）。所以方文是不可基于贝文的复述创作的。

洪文指出:“方舟子对《数学大师》一书中段落的选择以及对《数学大师》那“浪漫”的形容也与[2]完全一致。”。事实上，引文2中的“浪漫”说法的段落是直接引述F Dyson在其书中（Disturbing the Universe， 引文2 列举的参考文献1）对贝尔全书的一句感官评价。《数学大师》共有29章，介绍了从公元前到19世纪历史上著名数学家们的生平和数学上的贡献。其中第20章“Genius and Stupidity”(天才和愚蠢)是介绍伽罗华的生平和数学贡献。然而，单从描述伽罗华的这一章来看，无论从其题目“天才和愚蠢”，还是伽罗华的论文被法国科学院丢失、拒绝，与一文不值的女孩（worthless girl, 贝文374页[d]）的感情，及最后伽罗华在愚蠢的决斗中丧命的情节，都难以想象出怎么用“浪漫的笔调”写出的这一章节。这不合情理的用词旁证了方文中“《数学大师》的浪漫笔调”是复制自引文2。
此外，方文在介绍贝尔书的语句也抄袭维基网站关于《数学大师》的介绍[e]
方文：“美国数学家埃里克•坦普尔•贝尔在1937年出版了一部至今还在印刷的科普名著《数学大师》，”“ 《数学大师》的浪漫笔调激励了许多年轻人投身于数学研究，甚至成为著名数学家，其中包括诺贝尔经济学奖获得者约翰•纳什。”
英文维基网页[e]: “Men of Mathematics is a well-known book on the history of mathematics written in 1937 by the mathematician E.T. Bell.”“Men of Mathematics has inspired many young people, including a young John Forbes Nash Jr., to become mathematicians.”( 译文：“《数学大师》是由数学家贝尔写于1937年的关于数学史的名著”；“ 《数学大师》激励了许多年轻人，包括约翰纳什，成为数学家”)。需要指出的是，最后一次印刷《数学大师》英文版是在1986年，所以方文中虽然添加了维基网页[e]中没有的“至今还在印刷”一句却反而是不确切的。
综上所述，洪文引证的方文中大多语句与引文1及2的雷同，并出现数处只能由于误读引文1而导致的常识错误。由此可以判定方文是主要基于引文1编译而成，同时也引用了引文2和一些其它文章的内容。方文中完全没有提及及标注这些引用内容的来源，所以评议人支持洪文中判定方文抄袭的结论。
参考文献：
a. 洪文引文1：[www.2250s.com]
b. 洪文引文2：“Genius and Biographers: The Fictionalization of Evariste Galois”，Tony Rothman， [www.2250s.com]
c. 洪文引文3：[www.2250s.com]
d. “Men of Mathematics—The lives and Achievement of the Great Mathemayicians from Zeno to Poincare”,E.T. Bell, Simon & Schuster Inc，New York，1965．
e. “Men of Mathematics” From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: [en.wikipedia.org]

方舟子抄袭案（第3号）
评议书（第3号）

我仔细阅读了洪荞的举报材料， 并考证了相关文章的原始出处。 发现如下事实：

1. 举报材料是真实的；
2. 方舟子的署名文章发表时间是在原始文献的发表之后；
3. 方舟子的署名文章没有引证原始文献、也没有在文章中说明其信息来源；
4. 方舟子的署名文章和原始文献有大量的雷同之处。

分别说明如下：

1. 洪荞在举报材料中给出了方舟子署名的中文文章和被抄袭的英文文章的出处。 经查证无误。

2. 同样， 洪荞说明了举报材料中， “[1]是WiKi2009年2月5日的版本，[2，3]是[1]中列出的链接”。 经查证无误。 [2]由Tony Rothman在1982年发表于American Mathematical Monthly.

3. 方舟子的署名文章的电子版可见于： [blog.sina.com.cn]
没有引证原始文献、也没有在文章中说明其信息来源。

4. 洪荞敏锐地发现： 方舟子不但在行文结构上抄袭了原始文献， 在语言上也不知羞耻地剽窃了原始文献， 特别是Tony Rothman的文章。 如：方舟子的文中出现“《数学大师》的浪漫笔调激励了许多年轻人投身于数学研究” ，而Tony Rothman引用Freeman Dyson 的著作：“the romantic prose of E.T. Bell's Men of Mathematics, ... has awakened many people of my generation to the beauties of mathematics. ... The legend ... has fired the imagination of generations of mathematics students.”（《Disturbing the Universe》(New York: Harper and Row, 1979), p. 14.）

方舟子的抄袭确实很“浪漫”， 一点也不科学！

更可笑的抄袭是： 方舟子在文中写道“群论的创建足以使数学家忙上几百年，但并非一夜之间的事。”， 方舟子的这种不通顺的汉语， 原来是来自对Tony Rothman的文章的硬译： “Galois had indeed helped to create a field which would keep mathematicians busy for hundreds of years but not "in those last desperate hours before the dawn." ” （见[www.physics.princeton.edu]）

洪荞把方舟子署名文章和原始文献对比， 充分地揭示了方舟子抄袭剽窃的事实。 方舟子的署名短文， 无段落不抄， 是属于性质极为恶劣的剽窃。 建议通知原文作者， 特别是Tony Rothman。