4 ms·

> The online community desires quick reactions and assessments. However, intricate mathematical arguments by their nature do not allow for them Interesting tha

• _delirium 15y ago
  He does sort of balance it with an opposing point, though: > My biggest worry about all this is that claims of a major result should be resolved in a timely fashion, since otherwise unpleasant claims of credit and priority may arise. In this case it's not too clear to me what's gained from keeping the updated proof private, available only to a few anonymous referees, and not available to folks like Lipton. It might still take a while to sort out even if it were generally available, but that's different from keeping it within a very slow and limited formalized process.
• patrickyeon 15y ago
  > There is immense power in the web as a method of understanding mathematical claims. The proof attempt was read by many, and this quickly led to insights about it. From Fields Medalists to professional mathematicians to amateurs, all helped with the analysis of the claim. We were amazed at the power of the crowd in this situation. Even though it's what people have been saying about potential for a new style of peer review, this call-out was more interesting to me. It's worded as if it might have gotten some royal 'we' interested in doing web-style collaboration, or at least taking it seriously.