Not to Theseus, however close.
But on the superfluence of latter-day (PhD- in particular) theses in printed form. Wouldn’t they be much better on-line, in a format with clickable hyperlinks ..? Wasn’t that what hyperlinking was ‘invented’ for ..!?
Why then still rely on the old ‘footnote’ reference system… If only b/c some geriatric referees still want to see their own name printed and care less or not at all about hits. With the democratization of even science, wouldn’t hit scores (Errm, weighted by the authority of the visitors …! How? We’ll figure something out) be a better validity measure?
Yes, of course this would require a backlog of old printed articles to be put on-line, including linking their reference lists. But this effort should (sic) be minute, compared to today’s paper production — I mean, the production of papers. And, in the end, needed anyway.
Oh, another inhibitor for the oldies: their references can now be checked automatically (I guess (appropriately)) and their assumed notoriety will be disclosed exposed for what it is — which may not be liked by all.
But then, on-line theses would be much better readable since the Definitions and Research Description parts might be separate html docs, split away from the core science content.
Many more advantages, and this:
[No longer dungeoned but in Church, still stalactitic; Edinburg]