6 ms·

Could it be that the million dollar millennium prizes are actually slowing down the resolution of important problems because they discourage crowd sourcing proo

Could it be that the million dollar millennium prizes are actually slowing down the resolution of important problems because they discourage crowd sourcing proofs?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
fizx 16y ago
It seems possible to me, but doubtful. Even contributing work worth a footnote in the wikipedia article about solving P =? NP would validate a lifetime of research to many people.
pgbovine 16y ago
well, you can't crowdsource everything ... sure, crowdsourcing things that most humans can do (e.g., labeling images) works pretty well, but solving open problems in math or composing masterful works of literature, eh more doubtful. the crowds are only wise in certain respects.
- philh 16y ago
  Mathematics has been crowdsourced effectively. See: http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/04/08/blogging-tic-tac-toe-and-the-future-of-math/ http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/04/08/blogging-tic-tac-t...
Groxx 16y ago
>... because they discourage crowd sourcing proofs? Do they? It seems it would be valuable in any pursuit, as it costs the reviewers less. It certainly discourages crowdsourcing solutions, as then how do you split the winnings, but proofs? That seems to require an attempted solution first, to be checked, in which case credit is pretty easily assigned.
j-g-faustus 16y ago
I may be out of tune with many others here, but I think certain constructive processes (as in creating a many-faceted proof, outlining overarching software architecture, making the storyline of a good novel/movie) are most efficient with small groups of people. Otherwise you run into issues of "design by committee" or "too many cooks". It is easier to crowdsource once the main outline is in place, it structures a vague problem into a set of more specific subtasks that can (more or less) easily be distributed across many people. Like in this case: Deconstructing an existing proof can work very well with crowdsourcing, since a proof contains a relatively small set of specific claims, and each "crowd" contributor can focus on one particular issue. But this works because the crowd now has a common focus point and task list created by the paper being published. It's not clear to me how (or whether) the process could be reversed, that the same crowd and effort could be coordinated to cowrite an original paper with an alternative proof.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  I'd agree that crowd sourcing might not always be the best way to approach things. But the general situation that the person who gets the final result wins very likely does inhibit effective work on the solution of very difficult problems. I mean, I think there's a consensus that if Wiles had been publishing his results as he went along, Fermat would have been solved earlier but probably not by Wiles himself. Whether the current N/NP proof is right or not, it also is clearly the product of long work in a vacuum. That's not the best way to do things if nothing else as a matter of sanity. If you're publishing as you go along, you've got a lot more of a sanity check. Further, if research is open, you can do single person, small-committee and crowd-sourced versions. Still, I don't think this primarily a matter of the Millennium Prizes in particular but of the tremendous competition of academia in general - Wiles' effort happened before the Millennium Prizes - and he couldn't get Fields Medal either - too old. Oddly enough, the Netflix prize actually seems to have produced a fusion of efforts in the end. Perhaps future prize creators could think about that. Both the Millennium Prize and the Fields Medal seem deeply problematic in their effect on mathematics in general.
  - marte 16y ago
    Would they pursue for the proof in the first place, if not for the prizes (recognition, among others)? I think it's just analogous to how businesses work, with competition, secrecy, etc. And the debate on whether this approach to proof is good or not overall is similar to the debate of capitalism vs. communism.
  - j-g-faustus 16y ago
    Good points, and I agree. The Netflix prize is interesting. According to a summary post on the Netflix forum the early results were mainly by individuals... the team members began to coalesce and combine, and in the end, entire teams coalesced and recombined. http://www.netflixprize.com//community/viewtopic.php?pid=9616#p9616 http://www.netflixprize.com//community/viewtopic.php?pid=961... I can only speculate that the combination of a deadline, a problem that was too hard for any individual and a common forum for exchanging ideas helped encourage team formation. (I.e when you realize that you can't do this alone, teaming up is a rational thing to do.) I assume that the problems we (as in society, humanity) want to tackle will grow ever more complex in the future, and may easily outgrow the capacity of individuals. So yes, perhaps we could/should learn from how the Netflix prize played out...
Confusion 16y ago
I don't think anyone working on these kind of problems for years is aiming for the M$. That just icing on the cake. The main reason for not publishing partial results (which could be considered to be a sort of crowdsourcing, as it will lead to dozens of people reading and inspecting the results), is that someone could recognize the trail and beat you to its endpoint.

Could it be that the million dollar millennium prizes are actually slowing down the resolution of important problems because they discourage crowd sourcing proofs?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

fizx 16y ago

It seems possible to me, but doubtful. Even contributing work worth a footnote in the wikipedia article about solving P =? NP would validate a lifetime of research to many people.

pgbovine 16y ago

well, you can't crowdsource everything ... sure, crowdsourcing things that most humans can do (e.g., labeling images) works pretty well, but solving open problems in math or composing masterful works of literature, eh more doubtful. the crowds are only wise in certain respects.

philh 16y ago
Mathematics has been crowdsourced effectively. See: http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/04/08/blogging-tic-tac-toe-and-the-future-of-math/ http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/04/08/blogging-tic-tac-t...

Groxx 16y ago

>... because they discourage crowd sourcing proofs? Do they? It seems it would be valuable in any pursuit, as it costs the reviewers less. It certainly discourages crowdsourcing solutions, as then how do you split the winnings, but proofs? That seems to require an attempted solution first, to be checked, in which case credit is pretty easily assigned.

j-g-faustus 16y ago

I may be out of tune with many others here, but I think certain constructive processes (as in creating a many-faceted proof, outlining overarching software architecture, making the storyline of a good novel/movie) are most efficient with small groups of people. Otherwise you run into issues of "design by committee" or "too many cooks". It is easier to crowdsource once the main outline is in place, it structures a vague problem into a set of more specific subtasks that can (more or less) easily be distributed across many people. Like in this case: Deconstructing an existing proof can work very well with crowdsourcing, since a proof contains a relatively small set of specific claims, and each "crowd" contributor can focus on one particular issue. But this works because the crowd now has a common focus point and task list created by the paper being published. It's not clear to me how (or whether) the process could be reversed, that the same crowd and effort could be coordinated to cowrite an original paper with an alternative proof.

joe_the_user 16y ago
I'd agree that crowd sourcing might not always be the best way to approach things. But the general situation that the person who gets the final result wins very likely does inhibit effective work on the solution of very difficult problems. I mean, I think there's a consensus that if Wiles had been publishing his results as he went along, Fermat would have been solved earlier but probably not by Wiles himself. Whether the current N/NP proof is right or not, it also is clearly the product of long work in a vacuum. That's not the best way to do things if nothing else as a matter of sanity. If you're publishing as you go along, you've got a lot more of a sanity check. Further, if research is open, you can do single person, small-committee and crowd-sourced versions. Still, I don't think this primarily a matter of the Millennium Prizes in particular but of the tremendous competition of academia in general - Wiles' effort happened before the Millennium Prizes - and he couldn't get Fields Medal either - too old. Oddly enough, the Netflix prize actually seems to have produced a fusion of efforts in the end. Perhaps future prize creators could think about that. Both the Millennium Prize and the Fields Medal seem deeply problematic in their effect on mathematics in general.
- marte 16y ago
  Would they pursue for the proof in the first place, if not for the prizes (recognition, among others)? I think it's just analogous to how businesses work, with competition, secrecy, etc. And the debate on whether this approach to proof is good or not overall is similar to the debate of capitalism vs. communism.
- j-g-faustus 16y ago
  Good points, and I agree. The Netflix prize is interesting. According to a summary post on the Netflix forum the early results were mainly by individuals... the team members began to coalesce and combine, and in the end, entire teams coalesced and recombined. http://www.netflixprize.com//community/viewtopic.php?pid=9616#p9616 http://www.netflixprize.com//community/viewtopic.php?pid=961... I can only speculate that the combination of a deadline, a problem that was too hard for any individual and a common forum for exchanging ideas helped encourage team formation. (I.e when you realize that you can't do this alone, teaming up is a rational thing to do.) I assume that the problems we (as in society, humanity) want to tackle will grow ever more complex in the future, and may easily outgrow the capacity of individuals. So yes, perhaps we could/should learn from how the Netflix prize played out...

Confusion 16y ago

I don't think anyone working on these kind of problems for years is aiming for the M$. That just icing on the cake. The main reason for not publishing partial results (which could be considered to be a sort of crowdsourcing, as it will lead to dozens of people reading and inspecting the results), is that someone could recognize the trail and beat you to its endpoint.