Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

sligocki.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 114 posts

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#11

Post by Analemma_ »

immibis wrote: post #9

Discord links! As citations for major results in foundational computer science!

I understand the complaint here, but a lot of recent impressive progress in mathematics has been by rapid collaboration + iteration (e.g. the project to improve Zhang's prime gap bound), and it may be the case that different communication tools are not easily fungible with Discord in this regard. You have to go where the people actually are.

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#12

Post by LegionMammal978 »

immibis wrote: post #9

Discord links! As citations for major results in foundational computer science!

FWIW, it's a public Discord server, you can find the invite link at the top-right of https://bbchallenge.org.

Also, I'd consider these more as attributions than citations. All the major arguments supporting the results have been replicated in the blog post (in a more rigorous form), so it can stand on its own: the Discord links just provide historical context for those interested.

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#14

Post by j2kun »

immibis wrote: post #9

Discord links! As citations for major results in foundational computer science!

Finding bigger busy beaver numbers is not exactly foundational. More like recreational. If it were foundational it would be peer reviewed in a journal article, not posted on a blog.

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#15

Post by lisper »

immibis wrote: post #9

Discord links! As citations for major results in foundational computer science!

Why not? The idea that the only valid way to publish a scientific result is in a (so-called) peer-reviewed journal is a relic from 200 years ago when the scientific community was small enough to fit within the monkeysphere [1]. It is being clung to only because it is profitable for a small group of powerful academics and publishing houses, not because it has any actual merit in terms of the advancement of science. In fact, it's probably in no small measure responsible for contemporary replication crises. I'm as staunch an advocate of the scientific method as you will hope to find (I'm writing a book about it!) but IMHO traditional peer review is long past its sell-by date.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#18

Post by UncombedCoconut »

immibis wrote: post #9

Discord links! As citations for major results in foundational computer science!

As a member of these chats: it's often like hitting on an idea on a break-room blackboard and working it out, except the interaction can be cited. That's a positive change, if we can follow through and add to the literature in due time. Here's hoping.

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#20

Post by wizzwizz4 »

Analemma_ wrote: post #11
immibis wrote: post #9

Discord links! As citations for major results in foundational computer science!

I understand the complaint here, but a lot of recent impressive progress in mathematics has been by rapid collaboration + iteration (e.g. the project to improve Zhang's prime gap bound), and it may be the case that different communication tools are not easily fungible with Discord in this regard. You have to go where the people actually are.

But Discord isn't citable. Somebody needs to archive the Discord and make that available through the proper channels (e.g. a website, a book, the Internet Archive).
Post reply on HN