6 ms·
The Lean proof is published, you can download it. The clock definitely is ticking. Edit: Oh, didn't see the "qualifying outlet" condition. But Poincare was eve
by auggierose 14d ago
The Lean proof is published, you can download it. The clock definitely is ticking.
Edit: Oh, didn't see the "qualifying outlet" condition. But Poincare was ever just put on arXiv, so arXiv must count as well.
- raegis 14d agoIf I recall (too lazy to check) folks made slight improvements to Perelman's work and published it in mainstream journals, satisfying the "qualifying outlet" requirement.
- mr_mitm 14d agoI checked, you're right, but I think it's important to note that the prize did go to Perelman and he declined to accept.
- adastra22 14d agoPublish in academic language means accepted peer-reviewed paper.
- auggierose 14d agoAccepted by whom? Peer-reviewed by whom? I guess these little questions are what this article is really about.
- d0mine 14d ago> “The ultimate decision as to whether a publication qualifies as a “Qualifying Outlet” shall reside in the sole and unfettered discretion of CMI.”
- auggierose 14d ago[flagged]
- athrowaway3z 14d agoBy peers. Peer in peer-reviewed is a logical coherent and functional definition with answers. The logical issue with 'peers' is how to bootstrap it. At that bootstrap moment you can ask "by whom?". We are several centuries past that moment. The cultural/social question you might ask today is "why (keep) them?". At which point people will naturally ask you to make a strong case for "why not them?".
- thaumasiotes 14d ago> The logical issue with 'peers' is how to bootstrap it. At that bootstrap moment you can ask "by whom?". We are several centuries past that moment. Huh? We're about six decades past that moment.
- auggierose 14d ago> Peer in peer-reviewed is a logical coherent and functional definition with answers. What is the definition? If you tell me that, then I might be able to tell you if it is logical coherent and functional, I have a PhD in computational logic.
- wokwokwok 14d agoYour (many) replies on this topic are being down voted for a reason; please either post substantive comments or stop.
- auggierose 14d agoYes, for a reason, but not a reasonable reason, but the same reason you have for your comment: you just don’t know any better.
- da_chicken 14d agoAmongst all this rhetorical brush-beating, what were you trying to teach the snakes?
- raverbashing 14d ago
- syncsynchalt 14d agoPresumably the organization giving away the million dollars is the arbiter of that question.
- fc417fc802 14d agoI run this journal that you've never heard of that might interest you. I'd also like to invite you to be an editor, you can put it on your CV of course ...
- deleted 14d ago[deleted]
- aaron695 14d ago[dead]
- Razengan 14d agoSeems like artificial and maybe bitter gatekeeping
- AnimalMuppet 14d agoFor giving away a million bucks, you get to gatekeep however you choose. But no, peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal is a fairly normal standard.
- pred_ 14d agoAnd just to spell it out, since it looks like HackerNews is flooded by people who are new to science these days: even if a result doesn't come with a price, scholarly peer review is the norm across all of science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
- karmakurtisaani 14d agoThis is a good reminder for the generation grown up in the era of trust-me-bro benchmarks.
- limagnolia 14d agoBeing normal doesn't necessarily mean it isn't gatekeeping- gatekeeping is also quite "normal" in many cases. That being said, I think there needs to be some standard, and peer review seems like the best we have come up with. But is the current status quo for scientific publication the best we can do? I think that is an open question and we should be able to openly discuss alternatives.
- AnimalMuppet 14d ago"Is it the best we can do?" is a completely different question from "given that it's the current standard, should it be applied to this new claim that is happening now?"
- 14d ago
- deleted 14d ago[deleted]
- CGMthrowaway 14d agohttps://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-...
- adastra22 14d agoNot sure what your point is? When they say published they mean peer review. Regardless of what you think about publication, that's what it means.
- qlte 14d agoUnless you're suggesting they should change the existing qualification criteria to accommodate a group unwilling to play by the same rules as everyone else, I'm not sure why that's relevant.
- moffkalast 14d agoAnyone can put anything on arxiv, it counts the same as printing it on tissue paper.
- setopt 14d agoNot really. It's not peer reviewed, but it's also not a free-for-all repository. If you make a new account, you either have to get someone to vouch for you, or you have to wait arXiv mods to look carefully through your first few preprints. If you are found to post pseudoscience, overly fringe theories, etc., you'll get banned from arXiv; that's why alternative repositories like vixRa.org popped up. But I know why you think this; when I first joined arXiv many years, there were no such checks in place, at least not that I can remember.
- mr_mitm 14d agoI also don't remember checks, but I believe that having an email address of an approved organization was enough to pass.
- whateverboat 14d agoNo. You do have checks, it's just that once you publish 4-5 papers, 99% of your field is open to you so you never have to do the checks again.
- aeve890 14d ago>Anyone Strangely enough, the crackpots seems to prefer vixra.org to publish their work. I've never seen something like "4D wormholes can cure cancer" in ArXiv
- fasterik 14d agoI think the rules technically exclude the arXiv as a qualifying outlet. Without limiting any other provision in this Section, a publication lacking any of the following characteristics will be deemed not to be a Qualifying Outlet: i. an editorial board whose members are named and available for contact; ii. an editor or editorial board member whose professional knowledge of the global mathematics community would enable him or her to identify an appropriate referee to review a submitted paper; iii. a published refereeing process that, in the opinion of CMI, ensures that a submitted paper is reviewed and verified by appropriate experts in the field of the Problem; or iv. inclusion in the list of publications maintained by MathSciNet. The solution to the Poincaré conjecture was only accepted after an exposition of Perelman's proof was published in a refereed journal. His papers didn't qualify, but of course he got the credit for the result.