3 ms·
That's actually pretty cool. The difference is that here people are completely aware that this study does not in any way tell us whether P = NP (even if it was
by Kenji 11y ago
That's actually pretty cool. The difference is that here people are completely aware that this study does not in any way tell us whether P = NP (even if it was 100/0) as long as there's no solid proof on the table.
A meta-analysis in those fields is usually only used to analyze the behaviour and methodology of researchers, not to investigate the ground truth of the papers.
- Retra 11y ago"The behaviour and methodology of researchers" is exactly that thing that will lead to the truths you seek. You're basically saying a bridge-builder needn't waste any time worrying about the engineering of boats.
- Kenji 11y agoWhile I admit it was wrong to claim that all meta-analysis is bad, the main point of my argument has not been refuted. You cannot inspect 100 papers and make a truth claim that is stronger than the quality of the papers, and doing so is a folly. Nobody in maths uses meta-analysis to prove a theorem.