[Notice] Below thowe who got either "big O.K." or "small o.k." which is a summer-discount are passed this practice-course and may proceed to the EXAMINATION. Those who FAILED may attend one additional course on <<6 June, Friday from 14:20 to 17:40>>, and if they make an addtional task given then successufully, they are given additional points, and hopefully passed and may take the EXAMINATION. If you have a question send e-mail to akira@bstu.by Thank you for attending the course. Akira Imada [Who attend when and how good the result] ============================================================================================== Group A APRIL MAY Total (a minimum of 12.0 in total necessary) AS-21 (ii) 07 21 (05) 19 ------------------------------------------------------- Sereda Alena 3.9 4.5 4.0 12.4 => O.K. Polujanovich Ludmila 3.9 3.7 4.0 11.6 ----> o.k. Melnichuk Anastasiya 4.5 (4.2-May12) 3.0 11.7 ----> o.k. Kuzavko Igor 3.9 3.0 2.5 9.4 ----> o.k. Medunitsa Maksim 4.5 3.5 3.2 11.2 ----> o.k. Trofimuk Roman 4.5 3.3 3.3 11.1 ----> o.k. Oleksyuk Yuri 4.6 3.2 3.4 11.2 ----> o.k. Krishtafovich Oleg 5.0 3.5 4.9 12.9 => O.K. Serov Efim 4.0 3.0 3.0 10.0 ----> o.k. Zarubin Vladimir 3.9 3.3 3.0 10.2 ----> o.k. Kulbeda Stanislav 3.9 4.0 2.5 10.4 ----> o.k. ============================================================================================== Group B APRIL MAY TOTAL (a minimum of 12.0 in total necessary) AS-22 (i) 11 25 (09) 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Handogy Sergey 4.5 (3.8-May02) 2.5 10.8 ----> o.k. Hramcov Sergey 4.5 (3.8-May02) 2.5 10.8 ----> o.k. Stepanchyk Vadim 4.5 (3.0-May16) 2.7 10.2 ----> o.k. Stasyk Yuri 4.5 3.0 4.0 11.5 ----> o.k. Dvorecki Sergey 4.5 3.0 2.5 10.0 ----> o.k. Chernik Sergey 4.5 3.9 3.9 12.3 => O.K. Myl'kevich Kolja 4.5 3.9 3.9 12,3 => O.K. Lukoshnikov Sergey 4.5 3.0 2.5 10.0 ----> o.k. Nazaruk sveta 4.5 4.0 3.0 11.5 ----> o.k. Gurov Vitalik 4.5 5.0 5.0 14.5 => O.K. ============================================================================================== Group C APRIL MAY AS-21 (ii) 14 28 12 26 TOTAL (a minimum of 16.0 in total necessary) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baranov Ivan 5.0 4.0 4.8 --- 13.8 ----> o.k. Vasilev Andrey 5.0 3.0 --- 3.9 11.9 ----> o.k. Voytsekhovich Hennadzy 5.0 5.0 4.6 4.9 19.5 => O.K. Granev Sergey 4.0 4.2 4.8 4.9 17.9 => O.K. Gubenskiy Andrey 4.0 --- --- 1.0 5.0 => failed -> not appeared => FAILED Danilyk Denis 3.0 1.4 3.0 3.9 14.3 ----> o.k. Kozel Anatoliy 4.0 1.4 3.0 3.9 12.3 ----> o.k. Korotchikov Sergey 4.0 1.4 (police) 1.0 6.4 -----------> +2.0 on 6 June -> ok Prohorov Dmitriy 4.0 1.4 3.5 4.0 12.9 ----> o.k. ============================================================================================== Group D APRIL MAY AS-22 (ii) 18 02 16 30 TOTAL (a minimum of 16.0 in total necessary) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baranovski Sasha 4.0 3.8 3.0 4.0 14.8 ----> o.k. Voronov Vova 2.5 3.8 5.0 4.5 15.8 ----> o.k. Dudar Denis 4.0 3.8 3.5 4.0 15.3 ----> o.k. Vostrikov Vova 4.2 3.8 3.0 4.0 15.0 ----> o.k. Kalenkovich Natasha 4.4 3.8 3.0 4,9 16.1 => O.K. Kozich Tanja 4.0 3.8 3.0 4.9 15.7 ----> o.k. Kruglej Valera 4.0 3.8 3.0 4.9 15.7 ----> o.k. Savchuk Jura (3.0) 3.8 3.2 4.9 14.9 ----> o.k. (23 May instead of 18 Apr) Kozak Maxim 2.5 --- 3.0 2.0 7.5 -----------> +2.0 on 6 June -> ok ======================================================= Group E APRIL MAY (22) 20 TOTAL ------------------------------------------------------- Raitchenok Sergey 3.0 3.0 ----> o.k. Suharuk Denis 4.0 + 3.0 7.0 => O.K. Muhorovskij Sergey 2.5 2.5 ----> o.k. Pinchuk Stas 2.5 2.5 ----> o.k. Novitckij Maksim 2.9 2.9 ----> o.k. Mehedko Andrej 2.5 2.5 ----> o.k. Larkovich Aleksej 2.5 2.5 ----> o.k. Lepesh Ilya 4.9 + 3.0 7.9 => O.K. ======================================================= Group F APRIL MAY 29 27 TOTAL ------------------------------------------------------- Brich Aleksander 4.0 4.0 8.0 => O.K. Bobyleu Evgeniy 2.8 3.0 5.8 ----> o.k. Zhuravlevich Igor 2.4 3.0 5.4 ----> o.k. Korneichuk Andrey --- 4.5 4.5 -----------> 3.5 on 6 June -> ok Demeduk Vladimir 2.4 2.5 (1/2) 4.9 ----> o.k. Kuchko Yuriy 2.8 3.0 5.8 ----> o.k. Korobov Alexander --- 3.0 3.0 => failed -> not appeared => FAILED Zaharevich Andrey --- -- 0.0 -----------> 4.0 on 6 June -> ok [Points you are going to get every time] 5 ... If your result is very original and shown at first 4 ... When result is good but a second-hand one from others 3 ... normal result 2 ... poor but anyway made an effort 1 ... attend the course but acutally did nothing 0 ... not attend - If you share one results with N other person (i.e., cooperation), then the point will be divided by (N+1) - Even if you have to share one PC with others, each of you should show your own result and answer my question independently. - Do not help your friend explicitly, when I ask your friend questions to evaluate his/her results. This spoils your frind's originarity and the point would be reduced for that. Anyway, most important thing is originality and/or creativity. Try to show how your idea is original. [In order to pass as a success] - 16 points in total will pass the course - 12 to 15 are also considered according to individual's effort - 0 to 11 definitely to be failed. See you next year in that case, if any. [Massage given to Group B on 4 April] - Look at This! I was somewhat disappointed with this result. - I now know all were a results of transfer by floppy diskett. - Alas, however, it was too late to change the points. - Next time if it would happen again, then score would be 3 not 4.5 - Be unique and creative. Then you will get 5 [Plagiarism] Two of your friends ploudly showed me their result. But, alas, it was exactly the same one I gave "5" the other day. Once to our conference, a researcher from Egypt submitted three papers of him But all of those three papers are found to be exact copies from other researchers from Internet. They wer just results of grip & drop of mouth. An adverticement for a conference (this is called CFP) reads - "all submitted papers will be reviewed by a double-blind (at least two reviewers), non-blind, and participative peer review." I'd seen, however, exactly the same phrase in many other CFPs. Or, worse, sometimes, it seems to be cited without knowing its meaning. These are called PLAGIARISM. Not a few professors, novelists, article-writers in newspapers lost their job by this for ever.