blog: add note

1 files changed, 14 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/content/en/blog/2021115-rejected.md b/content/en/blog/2021115-rejected.md
index 1bd7489..703154d 100644
--- a/content/en/blog/2021115-rejected.md
+++ b/content/en/blog/2021115-rejected.md
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ This weekend we got word from the paper we submitted to JACM early
 surprised that we still hear of it after 3 years. So thanks to the
 reviewer for his/her time.  The rejection was justified, and I got
 something useful out of it, despite a lot of the reviewer's comments
-being disgracefully wrong.
+being disgracefully wrong[^1].
 
 I've written over 30 research papers in my first years at university,
 most went from first conception to a paper in less than a month. I had
@@ -44,4 +44,16 @@ Direction is more important than speed.
 
 Cheers,
 
-Dimitri
\ No newline at end of file
+Dimitri
+
+[^1]: The most ironic being that the reviewer (yes, we got only a
+      single reviewer) accuses me of redefining graph theory and using
+      pseudo-mathematics. The reviewer, obviously an engineer, then
+      claims that a _closed walk_ is the same as a _Hamiltonian path_.
+      What the actual fuck. In a walk, vertices can be visited multiple times.
+      All definitions in the paper are taken straight out of Dieter Jungnickels' excellent
+      [Graphs, Networks and Algorithms](https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-32278-5).
+      I didn't fully trust engineering reviews and had an actual professor
+      in discrete mathematics review the math before we submitted the
+      paper. I'll just take it that it was justified to add the basic math
+      definitions and build everything up from scratch.
\ No newline at end of file