3 ms·

Not to insult this important work, but the headline makes this sound a lot more important than it is, although "math proof" should have clued me in otherwise.

Not to insult this important work, but the headline makes this sound a lot more important than it is, although "math proof" should have clued me in otherwise. I was expecting something that'd actually explain why our planet's core is still hot, without using the thermonuclear crutch, given how it is nearly solid iron (not liquid) at such temperatures; such as properly integrating plasma physics (ie, Birkeland currents) into the math.

thebooktocome 10y ago
It's synonymous with the Nature headline: "Long-awaited mathematics proof could help scan Earth's innards" http://www.nature.com/news/long-awaited-mathematics-proof-could-help-scan-earth-s-innards-1.21439 http://www.nature.com/news/long-awaited-mathematics-proof-co... I fail to see how either headline is not an accurate representation of the result.
- CJefferson 10y ago
  The problem is that it's unclear the maths result lines up exactly with reality -- as I understand it, this is that a "perfect scan" lines up exactly with one model of reality. What we want is that some kind of "nearly accurate scan" produces a "nearly accurate reality". From my (limited) reading, the proof doesn't seem to demonstrate that (maybe I scanned it too quickly)
  - thebooktocome 10y ago
    I agree that's a limitation of the proof, but this is a thread about journalism tone. What alternative headline would you or the OP prefer? How much weaker does it need to be? Is "could theoretically help" weak enough, or do we need to go all the way to "could hypothetically, maybe, possibly help"? Forgive me, but it's frustrating to see Monday morning quarterbacking on a huge, important result that was the culmination of decades of work by the authors. Prior to this, the most general result in boundary rigidity was https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6425 https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6425, which only works on simple metrics.
Ensorceled 10y ago
I'm not sure your inflated expectations were a result of the headline. The headline explicitly says "could" and "describe", not "will", "explain" and "integrate". I'm all for clear headlines, but demanding that they don't also raise unrealistic expectations is a bit much.

thebooktocome 10y ago

It's synonymous with the Nature headline: "Long-awaited mathematics proof could help scan Earth's innards" http://www.nature.com/news/long-awaited-mathematics-proof-could-help-scan-earth-s-innards-1.21439 http://www.nature.com/news/long-awaited-mathematics-proof-co... I fail to see how either headline is not an accurate representation of the result.

CJefferson 10y ago
The problem is that it's unclear the maths result lines up exactly with reality -- as I understand it, this is that a "perfect scan" lines up exactly with one model of reality. What we want is that some kind of "nearly accurate scan" produces a "nearly accurate reality". From my (limited) reading, the proof doesn't seem to demonstrate that (maybe I scanned it too quickly)
- thebooktocome 10y ago
  I agree that's a limitation of the proof, but this is a thread about journalism tone. What alternative headline would you or the OP prefer? How much weaker does it need to be? Is "could theoretically help" weak enough, or do we need to go all the way to "could hypothetically, maybe, possibly help"? Forgive me, but it's frustrating to see Monday morning quarterbacking on a huge, important result that was the culmination of decades of work by the authors. Prior to this, the most general result in boundary rigidity was https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6425 https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6425, which only works on simple metrics.

Ensorceled 10y ago

I'm not sure your inflated expectations were a result of the headline. The headline explicitly says "could" and "describe", not "will", "explain" and "integrate". I'm all for clear headlines, but demanding that they don't also raise unrealistic expectations is a bit much.