5 ms·

Here's where you are wrong > But they might! And you would not notice that the framework had become inconsistent for a while. As the author stated, the math ca

Here's where you are wrong > But they might! And you would not notice that the framework had become inconsistent for a while. As the author stated, the math can be reproduced by reading it: ergo, thee is no barrier to entry except knowledge. The other sciences do not have this luxury - they require access to specialized instruments, participants, funding, and most importantly - time. Math can be checked nearly instantaneously, so the "might" becomes inconsequential my small.

FeepingCreature 5y ago
Also, math is universal. A study can be true in one place and false in another; a proof cannot. This is another barrier to replication.
kuhewa 5y ago
> Math can be checked nearly instantaneously, so the "might" becomes inconsequential my small. Can it though? Pickovers 2013 edge response comes to mind, can hundreds of pages of a proof based on axioms that require particular expertise to understand be checked instantaneously? I think it would easier to replicate the typical psychology experiment than to check the math in that case. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23670 https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23670
- somenewaccount1 5y ago
  A few edge case examples do not constitute a crisis. The point is not that 0 cases happen in mathematics, but rather that unreproducible results are not the norm, while in other sciences, it is the norm.
  - kuhewa 5y ago
    You might be mistaking me for someone who stated there is a math replication crisis. I replied to one specific claim
IggleSniggle 5y ago
> no barrier to entry except knowledge That’s fundamentally it, there’s a barrier to entry, and it’s knowledge. Other sciences may require specialized instruments and time, but math is also subject to the problems of knowledge not being instantaneously transferable. And I imagine, although I’m not certain how prevalent it is, that many branches of mathematics are also dependent on instrumentation these days, in the form of software. And we all know how software can be…
jcranberry 5y ago
Math cannot be checked instantaneously. Mochizuki's proof for the abc conjecture mentioned in the article was first released in 2012, and despite conferences and lots of time spent trying to figure out what he's saying and whether it's correct there is still no consensus.
- bryan0 5y ago
  As an aside, as I understand it there is general consensus now that that the proof is flawed: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12220 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12220
  - jcranberry 5y ago
    Thanks the post. This is the first time I've read an article by a math professor in such an acerbic and relatively handwoven way. Seems like over the years this proof must have generated passionate disagreement.
- somenewaccount1 5y ago
  Right, but that's a particularly rare example in mathematics, not the norm.

FeepingCreature 5y ago

Also, math is universal. A study can be true in one place and false in another; a proof cannot. This is another barrier to replication.

kuhewa 5y ago

> Math can be checked nearly instantaneously, so the "might" becomes inconsequential my small. Can it though? Pickovers 2013 edge response comes to mind, can hundreds of pages of a proof based on axioms that require particular expertise to understand be checked instantaneously? I think it would easier to replicate the typical psychology experiment than to check the math in that case. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23670 https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23670

somenewaccount1 5y ago
A few edge case examples do not constitute a crisis. The point is not that 0 cases happen in mathematics, but rather that unreproducible results are not the norm, while in other sciences, it is the norm.
- kuhewa 5y ago
  You might be mistaking me for someone who stated there is a math replication crisis. I replied to one specific claim

IggleSniggle 5y ago

> no barrier to entry except knowledge That’s fundamentally it, there’s a barrier to entry, and it’s knowledge. Other sciences may require specialized instruments and time, but math is also subject to the problems of knowledge not being instantaneously transferable. And I imagine, although I’m not certain how prevalent it is, that many branches of mathematics are also dependent on instrumentation these days, in the form of software. And we all know how software can be…

jcranberry 5y ago

Math cannot be checked instantaneously. Mochizuki's proof for the abc conjecture mentioned in the article was first released in 2012, and despite conferences and lots of time spent trying to figure out what he's saying and whether it's correct there is still no consensus.

bryan0 5y ago
As an aside, as I understand it there is general consensus now that that the proof is flawed: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12220 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12220
- jcranberry 5y ago
  Thanks the post. This is the first time I've read an article by a math professor in such an acerbic and relatively handwoven way. Seems like over the years this proof must have generated passionate disagreement.
somenewaccount1 5y ago
Right, but that's a particularly rare example in mathematics, not the norm.