7 ms·
I was very confused by this. The paper linked by OP (the one I also had in mind when I started the article) is from 2012, but the article is written as if the r
by jtanderson 9y ago
I was very confused by this. The paper linked by OP (the one I also had in mind when I started the article) is from 2012, but the article is written as if the results are recent (specifically it says from 2016! Admittedly, only five years for such a big result in that field is probably still "recent" to experts; but probably not to the "pop science" readers.
Furthermore, the lack of an actual citation was very disturbing, since if anybody did want to read the actual paper, they had to google for terms that would lead to basically incomprehensible search results.
- throwawayjava 9y agoThe work was first posted to arxiv in 2012. It can take a while until a result is understood by enough experts to confirm its correctness. Imagine if journalists wrote an article claiming P=NP is closed every time someone posted their attempt to arxiv. Also, this work very recently won a prestigious award. Also, result published ---> result accepted ---> journalist writes high-quality piece explaining result to lay people can take years. > the lack of an actual citation was very disturbing The first linked text in the article is a link to the arxiv paper.
- gus_massa 9y agoIn Math usually the peer review time is very long. Perhaps one or one and half year (unless you are unlucky and when you contact the editor after a year he realizes that one of the referees "crashed" and must be "reseted"). In Physics people gets mad if the referees+editor take more than two months. Each branch of science has its own typical time.
- burkaman 9y agoThe article links to their journal publication from last year: http://www.ams.org/journals/jams/2016-29-01/S0894-0347-2015-00830-X/home.html http://www.ams.org/journals/jams/2016-29-01/S0894-0347-2015-...