3 ms·
> > whose correctness is actually > > dependent on the correctness of the > > results of *a* paper it cites > where each paper is independent of
by peteretep 9y ago
> > whose correctness is actually
> > dependent on the correctness of the
> > results of *a* paper it cites
> where each paper is independent of
> *all* the others
These are not describing the same thing
- nonbel 9y agoI think they are, unless you are selectively citing (irrelevant) papers to avoid depending on any...
- mekarpeles 9y agoIf I understand, the author is suggesting something like pagerank for axiomatic correctness where a paper's score can be interpreted per paper (in terms of some binary promise of "correctness") even if the score is computed by the weighted correctness of the papers it represents. Really, the information should be abstracted away from the paper, a la freebase or wikidata, and there should be strict rules (e.g. the protocols stackoverflow enforces) such that no cycles can occur, such that propositions can be resolved to axioms, and such that it is practical to compute scores in a finite period of time with reasonable resource constraints... See also gitxiv.org (at attempt at literate research for computer science and physics papers that can be paired with code). It doesn't address the problem described, but if statements of a paper are codified (e.g. curry howard isomorphism) in a strict way, it makes it easier for "linked statements" to have a quantifiable value.