3 ms·

> Recently, somebody shared on Twitter a new proof As far as I can tell there is no link to this tweet in this post which is bad form to say the list. The post

by nanis 4y ago

> Recently, somebody shared on Twitter a new proof As far as I can tell there is no link to this tweet in this post which is bad form to say the list. The post has multiple links promoting author's other posts, but not to the raison d'etre for this post. Clarification: The post does link to a Tumbler post which one might infer had been mentioned in the tweet, but without a link to said tweet, it's odd. It is common to give credit to the work that led to one's discovery of related work. PS: Apparently, the author is Director of Research, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge which makes this lack of proper citation even more perplexing. PPS: Compare the intro paragraph of this post to one that properly cites related work[1] with actual links to the referenced works: >> Yesterday I came a across a new (new to me, that is) proof of the irrationality of \sqrt{2}. I found it in the paper “Irrationality From The Book,” by Steven J. Miller, David Montague, which was recently posted to arXiv.org. PPPS: It is especially ironic that the author has also wrote this at some point[2]: >>> Many people write their related work section in a wholly passive mockery of English, never mentioning the names of their colleagues: ... It’s discourteous and reads badly. Reference numbers are not names, so why do you keep forcing your reader to look them up in the bibliography? The direct way is also clearer: ... [1]: https://divisbyzero.com/2009/10/06/tennenbaums-proof-of-the-irrationality-of-the-square-root-of-2/ https://divisbyzero.com/2009/10/06/tennenbaums-proof-of-the-... [2]: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/Pages/Scream.html https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/Pages/Scream.html

ajb 4y ago
An academic paper should cite sources because such a paper makes a claim to originality of its own. So it is 'bad form' not to cite sources because you would be implying that their work is yours. A blog post does not necessarily claim originality and in particular this one does not, it's showing how a proof can be automated. Of course, it's a good idea to cite sources anyway and it's a convenience for the reader, as well as a courtesy to the authors. But it's not a moral failing. If blog posts were as onerous to write as journal articles, there would be no advantage to blogging.
adunk 4y ago
The first sentence in the blog post contains a link to the proof itself, which seems to have been posted to tumblr: https://theapproximatepresent.tumblr.com/post/51484587425/a-favourite-proof-of-mine-first-demonstrated-to https://theapproximatepresent.tumblr.com/post/51484587425/a-... I'm not sure it is necessary for the author also post the link to the tweet that referred to the tumblr post, since the tumblr post is where the actual proof is.
- nanis 4y ago
  The tweet is the "secondary source" whereas the Tumbler post is the "primary source" in this context[1]: > For example, suppose you are reading an article by Brown (2014) that cites information from an article by Snow (1982) that you would like to include in your essay. For the reference list, you will only make a citation for the secondary source (Brown). You do not put in a citation for the primary source (Snow) in the reference list. For the in-text citation, you identify the primary source (Snow) and then write "as cited in" the secondary source (Brown). Regardless of one's preferred style guide, it is odd not to credit the author whose work that led to one's discovery of the inspiration for one's own work. [1]: https://guides.library.uwm.edu/c.php?g=1007936&p=7303662 https://guides.library.uwm.edu/c.php?g=1007936&p=7303662
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > For the reference list, you will only make a citation for the secondary source (Brown). You do not put in a citation for the primary source (Snow) in the reference list. For the in-text citation, you identify the primary source (Snow) and then write "as cited in" the secondary source (Brown). That's not so you can give credit to Brown for helpfully pointing you toward Snow. It's a requirement that you admit, when you cite Snow, that you never actually read Snow. If you read Brown, find a pointer to Snow, and then read Snow, you don't cite Brown at all.
  - orra 4y ago
    You keep saying “author”, but putting a screenshot of a Tumblr post on Twitter is stretching the word quite considerably. Besides, the Tumblr post is already a secondary source.

by nanis 4y ago

ajb 4y ago

An academic paper should cite sources because such a paper makes a claim to originality of its own. So it is 'bad form' not to cite sources because you would be implying that their work is yours. A blog post does not necessarily claim originality and in particular this one does not, it's showing how a proof can be automated. Of course, it's a good idea to cite sources anyway and it's a convenience for the reader, as well as a courtesy to the authors. But it's not a moral failing. If blog posts were as onerous to write as journal articles, there would be no advantage to blogging.

adunk 4y ago

The first sentence in the blog post contains a link to the proof itself, which seems to have been posted to tumblr: https://theapproximatepresent.tumblr.com/post/51484587425/a-favourite-proof-of-mine-first-demonstrated-to https://theapproximatepresent.tumblr.com/post/51484587425/a-... I'm not sure it is necessary for the author also post the link to the tweet that referred to the tumblr post, since the tumblr post is where the actual proof is.

nanis 4y ago
The tweet is the "secondary source" whereas the Tumbler post is the "primary source" in this context[1]: > For example, suppose you are reading an article by Brown (2014) that cites information from an article by Snow (1982) that you would like to include in your essay. For the reference list, you will only make a citation for the secondary source (Brown). You do not put in a citation for the primary source (Snow) in the reference list. For the in-text citation, you identify the primary source (Snow) and then write "as cited in" the secondary source (Brown). Regardless of one's preferred style guide, it is odd not to credit the author whose work that led to one's discovery of the inspiration for one's own work. [1]: https://guides.library.uwm.edu/c.php?g=1007936&p=7303662 https://guides.library.uwm.edu/c.php?g=1007936&p=7303662
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > For the reference list, you will only make a citation for the secondary source (Brown). You do not put in a citation for the primary source (Snow) in the reference list. For the in-text citation, you identify the primary source (Snow) and then write "as cited in" the secondary source (Brown). That's not so you can give credit to Brown for helpfully pointing you toward Snow. It's a requirement that you admit, when you cite Snow, that you never actually read Snow. If you read Brown, find a pointer to Snow, and then read Snow, you don't cite Brown at all.
- orra 4y ago
  You keep saying “author”, but putting a screenshot of a Tumblr post on Twitter is stretching the word quite considerably. Besides, the Tumblr post is already a secondary source.