3 ms·
> (yes, the authors named it after themselves) The same way the AVL tree is named after its inventors - Georgy Adelson-Velsky and Evgenii Landis... Nothing pecu
by guy4261 7mo ago
> (yes, the authors named it after themselves)
The same way the AVL tree is named after its inventors - Georgy Adelson-Velsky and Evgenii Landis... Nothing peculiar about this imh
- abound 7mo agoSame with RSA and other things, I think the author's point is that slapping your name on an algorithm is a pretty big move (since practically, you can only do it a few times max in your life before it would get too confusing), and so it's a gaudy thing to do, especially for something illegitimate.
- johncarlosbaez 7mo agoAdelson-Velsky and Evgenii Landis were not the ones who named their tree the "AVL tree". In my "crackpot index", item 20 says: 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
- goodmythical 7mo agoLike RSA?
- ot 7mo agoRSA was also not given that name by its authors, the name came later, which is usually the case. In the original paper they do not give it any name: https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Rsapaper.pdf https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Rsapaper.pdf
- zahlman 7mo agoI find it especially strange that two of the authors gave their first name to the algorithm.
- ajkjk 7mo agohttps://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html for the curious (on that version it's item 25 though :o )
- yccs27 7mo agoThe last line of the introduction > By doing so, we aim to provide a novel paradigm [...] also made me think of item 19 on your list: > 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". I'm sad though that you didn't call it the "Baez crackpot index"...
- croes 7mo agoNamed after != named by
- zimpenfish 7mo ago> Named after != named by But also note that naming an algorithm, in and of itself, is fine; it's naming it after yoursel(f,ves) in the initial paper that's a sign of crackpottery. * Named by: Probably fine but heavily weighted on the grandiosity of the title. * Named after: Almost certainly fine (unless it's something like "X's Absolute Drivel Faced Garbage That Never Works Because X Kidnapped My Dog And Is A Moral Degenerate Algorithm", obvs.) * Named by yoursel(f,ves) after yoursel(f,ves): In the initial paper? Heavy likelihood of crackpottery. Years later? Egotistical but strong likelihood of being a useful algorithm.
- apnorton 7mo agoThis might not be something entirely obvious to people outside of academia, but the vast majority (which I'm only weakening a claim of "totality" in order to guard against unknown instances) of entities that bear the name of humans in the sciences do so because other people decided to call them by that name. From another view, Adelson-Velsky and Landis called their tree algorithm "an algorithm for the organization of information" (or, rather, they did so in Russian --- that's the English translation). RSA was called "a method" by Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman. Methods/algorithms/numbers/theorems/etc. generally are not given overly specific names in research papers, in part for practical reasons: researchers will develop many algorithms or theorems, but a very small proportion of these are actually relevant or interesting. Naming all of them would be a waste of time, so the names tend to be attached well after publication. To name something after oneself requires a degree of hubris that is looked down upon in the general academic community; the reason for this is that there is at least a facade (if not an actual belief) that one's involvement in the sciences should be for the pursuit of truth, not for the pursuit of fame. Naming something after yourself is, intrinsically, an action taken in the seeking of fame.