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

What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

new.chess24.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 132 posts

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#111

Post by spekcular »

btwillard wrote: post #108
spekcular wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe knowingly disseminating incorrect results is wrong. This is a violation of fundamental academic standards; we would not tolerate it in any other scientific field. Do you disagree?

Do you think he's trying to poison the minds of young mathematicians? At the very least, you're raising ArXiV and YouTube to a standard they openly do not meet. Also, did you raise these points to him and he denied your evidence/proofs? Do you know someone who did and you're speaking for them?

Arxiv's submission policy says: "Submissions to arXiv should be topical and refereeable scientific contributions that follow accepted standards of scholarly communication." (https://arxiv.org/help/submit)

It against the prevailing norms of scholarly communication to publish results with serious errors known to the author.

I agree YouTube does not have this policy. I still find incorrectly claiming a proof of RH on YouTube distasteful, for similar reasons.

I personally know a mathematician who has pointed out the mistakes to him. But also, Polson good enough at math himself that he should be aware of these points. I would criticize him just the same if he knowingly published false economics results.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#112

Post by [deleted] »

btwillard wrote: post #104
spekcular wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard being applied here is just that the work is correct. Polson's paper on RH is wrong. It is bad practice to post incorrect results and not retract them when this is pointed out.

> It is bad practice to post incorrect results and not retract them when this is pointed out. And it's good practice to take shots at people whenever you see their name? Also, no, there's no "practice" that says you can't keep a mistake posted on ArXiV or YouTube. That just sounds like something you've made up to justify attacking someone. And who's pointing this out to him?

[deleted]

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#113

Post by seanhunter »

bongobingo1 wrote: post #32
sgjohnson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is. If the tournament is not organized by FIDE, or a national chess federation, it won't affect your FIDE rating. It will also not affect your FIDE rating if the tournament is not organised to the required standard (which is basically nonexistent for under-1800 rated players, and going all the way to the required presence of International Arbiters, metal detectors and blood tests for top level play)

> metal detectors and blood tests What are they looking for? Communicators and ... Adderall? Xanzolam?

Here are the official FIDE anti-doping regulations, which include the justification https://old.fide.com/fide/fide-anti-doping-regulations.html

Tl;dr: They use the world anti-doping agency list.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#115

Post by btwillard »

spekcular wrote: post #111
btwillard wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think he's trying to poison the minds of young mathematicians? At the very least, you're raising ArXiV and YouTube to a standard they openly do not meet. Also, did you raise these points to him and he denied your evidence/proofs? Do you know someone who did and you're speaking for them?

Arxiv's submission policy says: "Submissions to arXiv should be topical and refereeable scientific contributions that follow accepted standards of scholarly communication." ( https://arxiv.org/help/submit ) It against the prevailing norms of scholarly communication to publish results with serious errors known to the author. I agree YouTube does not have this policy. I still find incorrectly claiming a proof of RH on…

> Arxiv's submission policy says: "Submissions to arXiv should be topical and refereeable scientific contributions that follow accepted standards of scholarly communication." (https://arxiv.org/help/submit)

If you're implying that he violated ArXiV's submission policy, then you're going to need to stretch the definitions of those words a bit, as you attempted to do.

> I agree YouTube does not have this policy. I still find incorrectly claiming a proof of RH on YouTube distasteful, for similar reasons.

I get that you have all these personal opinions/takes, but ArXiV and YouTube don't appear to be justifying them.

> I personally know a mathematician who has pointed out the mistakes to him. But also, Polson good enough at math himself that he should be aware of these points. I would criticize him just the same if he knowingly published false economics results.

OK, so where did they post these discussions with Nick so that we can all clearly see that he's a bad or stupid person, as you're implying? Your comments assume that this is all common knowledge or apparent, but it isn't.

Are we just supposed to take your word for it? Well, I happen to know Nick, and, from my experiences with him, I have no reason to believe any of the things you're saying and/or implying.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#117

Post by isitmadeofglass »

lake_vincent wrote: post #80
spekcular wrote: post #77

It's worth noting that one of the authors of the cited paper [1] (Nick Polson) is infamous for claiming (incorrectly) a proof of the Riemann hypothesis [2]. This case is somewhat strange because he's not the usual mathematical crank; he's actually a quite well-recognized economics researcher who is clearly mathematically competent. But for some reason he persists. (If you search his name, you can find his YouTube cha…

The abstract kills me. "A Hadamard factorization of the Riemann Xi-function is constructed to characterize the zeros of the zeta function." Like, dude, you are claiming to solve a Millennium problem, you're gonna have to put a little more effort into explaining, ya know, the breakthrough... We care about the Riemann Hypothesis not for the theorem itself, but because the methods used to solve it will surely be revolut…

> Like, dude, you are claiming to solve a Millennium problem, you're gonna have to put a little more effort into explaining, ya know, the breakthrough...

In the abstract? If papers needed to cover everything in the abstract they would need to have an abstract for the abstract and they you’d just end up complaining about the abstract abstract not being complete…

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#118

Post by spekcular »

btwillard wrote: post #115
spekcular wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arxiv's submission policy says: "Submissions to arXiv should be topical and refereeable scientific contributions that follow accepted standards of scholarly communication." ( https://arxiv.org/help/submit ) It against the prevailing norms of scholarly communication to publish results with serious errors known to the author. I agree YouTube does not have this policy. I still find incorrectly claiming a proof of RH on…

> Arxiv's submission policy says: "Submissions to arXiv should be topical and refereeable scientific contributions that follow accepted standards of scholarly communication." ( https://arxiv.org/help/submit ) If you're implying that he violated ArXiV's submission policy, then you're going to need to stretch the definitions of those words a bit, as you attempted to do. > I agree YouTube does not have this policy. I st…

I don't think Nick Polson is a bad or stupid person. I never said this. In fact, as I said above, I believe he is quite mathematically competent. But even competent people make mistakes.

Norms of scholarly communication are not a personal opinion.

You have also curiously avoided my question about whether it is improper to knowingly disseminate incorrect results.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#119

Post by lake_vincent »

btwillard wrote: post #92
lake_vincent wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the discussion that makes you a crank. It's publishing a paper claiming you have solved something that you haven't even begun to understand. It's bypassing peer review. It's ignoring all the literature out there and claiming that is somehow a virtue. You have an interesting idea? Go ahead, please share it! But it's not productive to just start with "Look everybody, I solved it!" It just wastes everyone's tim…

> It's not the discussion that makes you a crank. It's publishing a paper claiming you have solved something that you haven't even begun to understand. It's bypassing peer review. It's ignoring all the literature out there and claiming that is somehow a virtue. You've effectively said that people can't post things on ArXiV unless they're up to your unstated standards; otherwise, they're just "cranks". Also, no one is…

Oh damn, I hit a nerve, huh?

Not trolling, I am serious. It took Peter freakin Scholze to finally settle the debate over Mochizuki's work. What came out of it? What else could Scholze have been working on instead of spending time finding the incredibly subtle gaps in logic that he used to construct his false theory?

What Mochizuki did was wrong is because he was utterly uncooperative with the mathematics community, he would answer questions only with more papers that never addressed the concerns being raised, and he was offended that so much scrutiny was applied.

Has Nick made an effort to educate people on the incredible breakthrough he has made? How many lectures has he given on it? Any conference videos on YouTube? Because I'll watch them. Mochi is an extreme example, so I'm sure he's not trying to do anything wrong. He should just retract the paper and keep working on it. An interested volunteer can tell him what is specifically wrong, and that's all that needs to happen.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#120

Post by lake_vincent »

isitmadeofglass wrote: post #117
lake_vincent wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The abstract kills me. "A Hadamard factorization of the Riemann Xi-function is constructed to characterize the zeros of the zeta function." Like, dude, you are claiming to solve a Millennium problem, you're gonna have to put a little more effort into explaining, ya know, the breakthrough... We care about the Riemann Hypothesis not for the theorem itself, but because the methods used to solve it will surely be revolut…

> Like, dude, you are claiming to solve a Millennium problem, you're gonna have to put a little more effort into explaining, ya know, the breakthrough... In the abstract? If papers needed to cover everything in the abstract they would need to have an abstract for the abstract and they you’d just end up complaining about the abstract abstract not being complete…

Right, because only extremes exist...

Or you can add, oh I dunno, two or three more sentences to maybe hint at what is novel and important about the approach?

Post reply on HN