This is fantastic. Imagine having to cite "Anonymous user on 4chan" on your paper. I'd probably just do it for the novelty (who else can say they have a more unusual source??)
I guess we cite the poster's hash and timestamp?
Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem
51–60 of 205 posts
Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem
#52An "academically correct" solution (i.e., not to taint the prestige of a scholar who cites the solution) would be to cite a real, proxy scholar who checks the solution, but gives all credit to the anonymous 4chan user. Scientists often abhor citing from blogs, forums, and Wikipedia, as those publications "are not peer-reviewed by trustworthy professionals".
> Scientists often abhor citing from blogs, forums, and Wikipedia, as those publications "are not peer-reviewed by trustworthy professionals". Which is sad because most peer-reviewed material are not trustworthy either. https://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/believe-it-or-not-most-pub... https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo... It's worrying that academia is slowly turning into a rigid "appeal to au…
Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem
#53An "academically correct" solution (i.e., not to taint the prestige of a scholar who cites the solution) would be to cite a real, proxy scholar who checks the solution, but gives all credit to the anonymous 4chan user. Scientists often abhor citing from blogs, forums, and Wikipedia, as those publications "are not peer-reviewed by trustworthy professionals".
The problems with blogs and wikipedia is that they can be changed, or in the case of blogs disappear. For wikipedia, you should reference the specific version of the article, which will never change. For blogs, or wikipedia articles you feel might get deleted, you can reference a specific version from archive.org.
Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem
#54Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess we cite the poster's hash and timestamp?
What do you mean by hash? 4chan posts use an incrementing id per board, so if you put >>>/sci/3751197 you have a unique identifier for the post (sci being the board and 3751197 being the post number). For convenience you could link to an archive site as well, but they're known to die every few years.
Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem
#56Looking at this from the other side, if a non-mathematician "solves an interesting problem", is there a recommended way to make the solution public? Something better than posting to 4chan? Is it possible to publish a result properly if one is not a mathematician and not affiliated with an institution?
Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem
#57"The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya" is a 14-episode anime adaptation which aired in 2006. Unusually, it broadcast its episodes not in chronological order, but in a mixed order, but for good theatrical reason; the series comprises a main plot arc, and various self-contained episodes which chronologically occur after it. Rather than have the climax of the series come halfway through, the self-contained episodes are distributed in between the episodes of the main plot arc. It sounds mad, but it actually worked very well.
This idiosyncrasy was explicitly referenced by the episodes themselves: the "next episode" preview at the end of every episode has one of the characters say "The next episode is episode X", then another character says "Wrong! The next episode is episode Y", where X and Y are the numbers according to broadcast and chronological order.
Amusingly the story gets more complicated from here. After the series was unexpectedly popular in the anglosphere, it got licensed for an official release. After the contract was signed and it was too late to change it, the company which licensed it noticed the contract had a stock clause in it requiring the episodes to be released on DVD in chronological order. They were unable to get this changed, whereas the strong fan preference was for the broadcast order. As a partial workaround, I recall they released a special edition with the same episodes on two sets of discs: one in broadcast order and one in chronological order.
But the DVD "chronological order" isn't quite chronological either; one of the episodes is a show-within-a-show, a film made by the characters of the series. This happens chronologically late in the show, but it is the first episode in both the broadcast and DVD order (which makes for an extremely confusing introduction to the series).
So there are at least three different plausible ways to watch the series: broadcast order, chronological order, and DVD order (which is almost like chronological order but not quite). This absurd legacy makes the series rather the obvious choice for discussing permutations of episodes. (My own preference is for yet another permutation: broadcast order, but with the aforementioned first episode moved to before the 12th episode, which relates to it.)
Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem
#58Come on, this is a myth. I work in math and it is not at all unusual to cite informal sources. Also, someone should inform Greg Egan: http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Superpermutations/Superpermu...
If you click through the links, he's in the google groups thread talking about it.
Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem
#59Also, in the context of this thread, 4chan is an ephemeral site so there is no such thing as link to content.
Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem
#60Something I somehow doubt too many of you would know but 4chan, despite being considered an unsavoury place because of certain subsections of it (which I'm not proud to admit I visit to learn what "the other side" is talking about), has a lot of great communities as well and I usually find the discussion quality there better than reddit. Also, in the context of this thread, 4chan is an ephemeral site so there is no s…