December 16, 1996    

Dr. David Russinoff
1106 West Ninth St.
Austin, TX 78703

Dear Dr. Russinoff:

Thank you for your kind distribution to me of your article, A Mechanically Checked Proof of the AMD K5 Floating-Point Square Root Microcode. I must say, while it is certainly well presented as a thing in itself, I wonder, as I'm sure many did who read it -- are you entirely satisfied as to its originality? Certainly others are not. I pray that it will come as a surprise to you, explained by your relative obscurity in this field, that I published, fully two years ago, these central findings now earnestly revealed, as it were.

Please take a moment to review the abstract of my article, A Proof of the Correctness Derivation of Superattenuated Boolean Structures (Prol. Rec. Sys. Design, 201:89, 1994). I trust that the awkward similarity between your methods and conclusions, and my previous work, will unsettle you as it has many of our colleagues:

We present a para-logical paradigm proof for the correctness derivation of superattenuated Boolean structures in a compressed AMD K6.6 microprocessor environment. This proof is inversely generated as a 5th level query in a derived architecture designed for null set applications, and predicated on the K6.6 microlanguage and PU-cascade decay model. We prove a non-modified tautology that adheres inductively to the collaborative definitions from the Lisbon DMR Congress, 1994. We also derive a subscript modification, following conventional extrusion methodology, which has been embedded as a spur equation in the UB4x logic and optically verified via the UB4x verifier. Finally, we enunciate a microscript correction that was applied prospectively on an accelerated this-then-that implementation basis, to impose a redundant correctness integrity loop.

Frankly, Dr. Russinoff, I have not pressed even myself for an explanation. I assure you that I have made the most forceful effort on your behalf to argue the case of serendipity, in an attempt to diffuse the growing consensus that at least at the Society level, there be a vigorous inquiry. My feeling is more sanguine and generally reflected by the old Texas saw, "it won't be the first time a pup ate off the big dog's plate".

Having only one request, I see no reason why this issue warrants further attention. In lieu of a review and formal determination of my primacy by the Society, I am satisfied that the listing of my precedent work in the reference attributions for your paper will suffice to preserve my archival interests.


Coke R. Smith