4 ms·
1. Many papers are never put into textbooks (or if they are, its much later) 2. A ton of research papers are extremely dense, while the actual 'newness' could
by nartz 11y ago
1. Many papers are never put into textbooks (or if they are, its much later)
2. A ton of research papers are extremely dense, while the actual 'newness' could be explained with a simpler definition and a really good diagram or code.
3. Without making too blanket of a statement, often, formal proofs are much more useful after one understands the intuition.
Inotherwords, I'd like to see a format that stresses expressing the 'new idea' simply. Proving that the new idea is supported by mathematics is definitely important (as you point out - its the 'meat'), but I believe understanding it follows intuition in many cases.
- robotresearcher 11y agoMost papers don't deserve to be in textbooks, as they are of very minor interest by themselves. Textbooks distill the fundamental bits. I agree with your other points, and many authors do work hard to give an intuitive description. Intuitive, that is, to a reader skilled in the art. But don't think that just because you don't understand a paper that means it is overly complicated or obtuse. It might be perfectly compact and straightforward if you are familiar with the field and its conventions and notation. And this is the most efficient way to communicate. Of course, some researchers just suck at writing. A few might even be trying to sound fancy and make things sound complicated or high-falutin'. Grad students start out with this tendency, but we try to beat it out of them ASAP. Some are never redeemed. But I like to think my group produces readable papers.
- dagw 11y agoProving that the new idea is supported by mathematics is definitely important No, it is all that matters. Having a neat and intuitive understanding of a new idea that is wrong has at best no value and at worst is actively harmful.