Related papers: "A combinatorial universal $\star$-product" is inc…
This paper is not ready for public consumption, as the last step (Figure 20) is incorrect.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author, due to a crucial error in the proof of Thm.1
This paper has been withdrawn by the author, due a critical mistake on page 3.
We show that the principal results of the article "The metric dimension of graph with pendant edges" [Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing, 65 (2008) 139--145] do not hold. In this paper we correct the results…
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors due to a crucial error in eqn 27.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a error in attachment of source file.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to an error in the derivation.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a crucial sign error in equation 1
This paper has been withdrawn by the author because there are some typos in proofs.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a crucial error in the proof of Theorem 1.
In [On $IP^{\star}$sets and central sets, Combinatorica, 14 (1994) 269-277], N. Hindman and V.Bergelson proved additive $IP^{\star}$-sets contain finite sums and finite products of a single sequence. An analogous study was made by A. Sisto…
The paper is withdrawn due to an error in Section 2.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to the presented idea is wrong.
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors due to some fatal errors in the analysis.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to the presented idea is wrong.
An error in Section 4 invalidates all the main results of the paper.
This paper has been withdrawn due to a crucial theoretical error.
This note corrects an erroneous article by M.W. Evans on his GCUFT theory which he took over in his GCUFT book. Due to Evans' bad habit of suppressing seemingly unimportant indices type match errors occur that cannot be removed. In addition…
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a crucial argument error at p.10.
We point out that the claim of strong universality in the paper J.Phys. A 44, 015002, arXiv:1011.3321 is incorrect, as it contradicts known rigorous results.