3 ms·

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/pos

by 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.
  - nanis 4y ago
    We do not know what was in the tweet simply because it is not referenced/cited.
    - orra 4y ago
      Okay, but that's not a reason to jump to the conclusion of bad citation practices.
fsckboy 4y ago
it's a little more confusing than that, because while he does link to a proof, the proof does not claim to be new, the guy says "A favourite proof of mine: first demonstrated to me by my professor in number theory. I think its beauty stems from the fact that it requires no knowledge of mathematics above the definition of what it means for a number to be rational, and can be written almost in one line."
notafraudster 4y ago
I think the grandparent is under the impression that the alleged Twitter version of the post had a non-anonymous author and that the Github blog instead chose to link to a Tumblr blog, where the blog author claims they learned the proof from an anonymous number theory professor, thus laundering out the authorship. But I suspect the alleged Twitter version was just a link to the Tumblr, for which it's clearly not necessary to attribute the retweeter (especially in the context of the post being "the proof is actually incomplete, not very good, and less beautiful/more complex than the canonical proof").

by adunk 4y ago

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.
- nanis 4y ago
  We do not know what was in the tweet simply because it is not referenced/cited.
  - orra 4y ago
    Okay, but that's not a reason to jump to the conclusion of bad citation practices.

fsckboy 4y ago

it's a little more confusing than that, because while he does link to a proof, the proof does not claim to be new, the guy says "A favourite proof of mine: first demonstrated to me by my professor in number theory. I think its beauty stems from the fact that it requires no knowledge of mathematics above the definition of what it means for a number to be rational, and can be written almost in one line."

notafraudster 4y ago

I think the grandparent is under the impression that the alleged Twitter version of the post had a non-anonymous author and that the Github blog instead chose to link to a Tumblr blog, where the blog author claims they learned the proof from an anonymous number theory professor, thus laundering out the authorship. But I suspect the alleged Twitter version was just a link to the Tumblr, for which it's clearly not necessary to attribute the retweeter (especially in the context of the post being "the proof is actually incomplete, not very good, and less beautiful/more complex than the canonical proof").