3 ms·
I wouldn't trust a (relatively new, correct?) Q&A site with commenting on research-level work, at least not above the level of informal chat. While outsiders, i
by mfukar 16y ago
I wouldn't trust a (relatively new, correct?) Q&A site with commenting on research-level work, at least not above the level of informal chat. While outsiders, id est people largely not acquainted with the subject at hand or lacking the expertise, can provide a fresh perspective, I would not expect the benefits from a discussion on such a high-level to outweigh the potential distractions and/or misguided approaches. Let alone other issues that arise with discussing unpublished work.
On the other hand, a discussion in the spirit of "what are the concepts behind this proof?", or "what are the implications if this proof is correct/wrong?", or even "what is the approach of this proof? what are the pitfalls associated with such a process?" are excellent ways of disseminating knowledge and educating about the subject a) without having to resort to the few experts on the field and b) keeping the content in line with the principles of a Q&A site.
- omaranto 16y agoYou don't sound familiar with MathOverflow: it is for research level questions in mathematics, and for the most part lives up to that purpose. The reason I wouldn't want to read about this paper there is that the MathOverflow users don't seem to include many computer scientists; they are mostly mathematicians who work in non-computery areas of math. In other words, I would go to MathOverflow for comments on a breakthrough paper in certain areas, just not this one.