3 ms·
And perversely, this makes it so that people feel compelled to add mathy things that add no additional explanatory power to the results. I've frequently heard
by neltnerb 10y ago
And perversely, this makes it so that people feel compelled to add mathy things that add no additional explanatory power to the results.
I've frequently heard complaints that people in some CS subfields in particular will just add complicated math because they have to rather than because it helps. It sucks because the authors don't have that great a grasp on the math anyway, the readers don't care about the math -- they just care about the intuition and process, and communication suffers overall.
My best papers had at most like two equations, and they were just there to clarify models for fits and the like in case the reader wasn't familiar with terms like "Arrhenius relation". So, you know, to actually make reading it less burdensome rather than just making it look more sophisticated.
- beambot 10y agoExactly! In the end, we ended up just publishing on arXiv.org and writing up a blog post [1]. It's not earth shattering... just an entirely new idea being demonstrated for the first time. The mathy background certainly exists, and was explained in other cited papers, but wasn't necessary to explain the new ideas. [1] http://www.hizook.com/blog/2015/08/10/mobile-robots-and-long-range-uhf-rfid-sensor-tags-internet-things http://www.hizook.com/blog/2015/08/10/mobile-robots-and-long...
- eli_gottlieb 10y agoI've definitely had reviewers tell me in a paper that I needed to make my math more formal and really prove things, when all I really wanted to say was, "We take the limit of foo as bar goes to zero, and get baz. Look, baz is interesting!"