3 ms·

Why not having a MathHub (like Github) for math, i believe even the toughest problem will have the pull request, and many people could understand the proof.

Q6T46nT668w6i3m 14y ago
While it isn't version control, wiki usage has become prevalent amongst collaborators, departments, and fields.
- revskill 14y ago
  I don't think wiki is a suitable tool for collaboration. We need small pull requests to small issue, then merging, disscussing on them, we can work parallel on multiple branches, and that means the workflow works for most of type of people.
ufo 14y ago
Math doesn work like that. You can't just create a git repo for PvsNP and expect that solving the problem is just a matter of accumulating enough commits. Not only does everyone involved have to know how everything works in order to come up with insight (making it hard to "delegate" subproblems) but you don't even know what subproblems need to be solved to come up with a solution!
- revskill 14y ago
  Why not seeing "Theorems" like "Open source projects" ? I think they have the same meaning. Math theorems are the framework for other to use or extend. And they should be "open sourced", i think we don't solve the Conjecture with this "MathHub" but it will get solved and understandable by anyone who're interested in a time.
Someone 14y ago
https://github.com/c-corn/corn https://github.com/c-corn/corn (via http://coq.inria.fr/cocorico/List%20of%20Coq%20Math%20Projects http://coq.inria.fr/cocorico/List%20of%20Coq%20Math%20Projec...) This is for CoQ, which is only one of many theorem provers/checkers. Differences between them aren't only notational; they also can also be in the set of axioms they build from. I don't believe what you believe though. Certainly, the 'many people could understand the proof' is only true in the 'could, if they were willing to spend years studying them' sense. For example, I think I could understand Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem, but as it stands, I bet it could take me a month to even understand what its first paragraph is talking about. There will be thousands, maybe even millions, of people in the same boat.
- revskill 14y ago
  I don't think so. For example, great project at Github's got success based on great documentation. Mathematical theorem's proofs are also delivered with full documentation. It's called documentation when implicitly anyone interested in can understand the documentation. For the Wiles' proof, we don't know the proof/theorems in it before we know it. In short, we need standards to the modern math.

Q6T46nT668w6i3m 14y ago

While it isn't version control, wiki usage has become prevalent amongst collaborators, departments, and fields.

revskill 14y ago
I don't think wiki is a suitable tool for collaboration. We need small pull requests to small issue, then merging, disscussing on them, we can work parallel on multiple branches, and that means the workflow works for most of type of people.

ufo 14y ago

Math doesn work like that. You can't just create a git repo for PvsNP and expect that solving the problem is just a matter of accumulating enough commits. Not only does everyone involved have to know how everything works in order to come up with insight (making it hard to "delegate" subproblems) but you don't even know what subproblems need to be solved to come up with a solution!

revskill 14y ago
Why not seeing "Theorems" like "Open source projects" ? I think they have the same meaning. Math theorems are the framework for other to use or extend. And they should be "open sourced", i think we don't solve the Conjecture with this "MathHub" but it will get solved and understandable by anyone who're interested in a time.

Someone 14y ago

https://github.com/c-corn/corn https://github.com/c-corn/corn (via http://coq.inria.fr/cocorico/List%20of%20Coq%20Math%20Projects http://coq.inria.fr/cocorico/List%20of%20Coq%20Math%20Projec...) This is for CoQ, which is only one of many theorem provers/checkers. Differences between them aren't only notational; they also can also be in the set of axioms they build from. I don't believe what you believe though. Certainly, the 'many people could understand the proof' is only true in the 'could, if they were willing to spend years studying them' sense. For example, I think I could understand Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem, but as it stands, I bet it could take me a month to even understand what its first paragraph is talking about. There will be thousands, maybe even millions, of people in the same boat.

revskill 14y ago
I don't think so. For example, great project at Github's got success based on great documentation. Mathematical theorem's proofs are also delivered with full documentation. It's called documentation when implicitly anyone interested in can understand the documentation. For the Wiles' proof, we don't know the proof/theorems in it before we know it. In short, we need standards to the modern math.