3 ms·

If someone claims that a certain class of problem that no one particularly cares about is in P, and then I prove that said problem is NP-complete, jumping up an

If someone claims that a certain class of problem that no one particularly cares about is in P, and then I prove that said problem is NP-complete, jumping up and writing a paper titled "P = NP" would be vastly premature. The previous claim that the problem is in P is now doing way more work, and thus needs to be reexamined. A title of "A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics" goes way too far if the individual question is not, in fact, a warrior.

phaemon 9y ago
I'm sorry but your analogy obscures your point rather than illuminating it. Are you saying that the person being female casts doubt on the initial analysis of the person as a warrior? If you are, is this assessment based on knowledge of Viking society or is it just your cultural assumption? If that's not what you're saying, could you please just say what you mean rather than suggesting it?
- mnarayan01 9y ago
  > Are you saying that the person being female casts doubt on the initial analysis of the person as a warrior? No -- Her being a female makes her classification as a warrior interesting (i.e. worthy of publication in American Journal of Physical Anthropology). Let's say someone went through and did genetic analysis on e.g. 10,000 Viking bodies each of which was considered to belong to a warrior with 95% likelihood. Finding that one of those bodies was female would not justify a conclusion of "A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics". The above, however, are just some random thoughts in answer to your question; it is not "what I'm saying". I'm merely defending the author of the linked post against claims that she is being pedantic: Taking issue with an article titled "A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics" is not pedantic if the individual was not a warrior. Note that I take absolutely no position on whether she's right about there being legitimate doubt as to whether or not the individual was a warrior, I merely note that while the objection may be foolish, but it is absolutely not pedantic.

phaemon 9y ago

I'm sorry but your analogy obscures your point rather than illuminating it. Are you saying that the person being female casts doubt on the initial analysis of the person as a warrior? If you are, is this assessment based on knowledge of Viking society or is it just your cultural assumption? If that's not what you're saying, could you please just say what you mean rather than suggesting it?

mnarayan01 9y ago
> Are you saying that the person being female casts doubt on the initial analysis of the person as a warrior? No -- Her being a female makes her classification as a warrior interesting (i.e. worthy of publication in American Journal of Physical Anthropology). Let's say someone went through and did genetic analysis on e.g. 10,000 Viking bodies each of which was considered to belong to a warrior with 95% likelihood. Finding that one of those bodies was female would not justify a conclusion of "A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics". The above, however, are just some random thoughts in answer to your question; it is not "what I'm saying". I'm merely defending the author of the linked post against claims that she is being pedantic: Taking issue with an article titled "A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics" is not pedantic if the individual was not a warrior. Note that I take absolutely no position on whether she's right about there being legitimate doubt as to whether or not the individual was a warrior, I merely note that while the objection may be foolish, but it is absolutely not pedantic.