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

Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 205 posts

Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

#131

Post by komali2 »

strictnein wrote: post #89
derblitzmann wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I know for 4chan, each thread is ephemeral and depending on how active a board is, the thread will be deleted. Which I think is the challenge citing it. Since even a day or two after finding it, it can be lost.

This is directly addressed in the comment you're responding to. > "And you have things like the internet archive or Webcite[0] to make sure the web document doesn't disappear."

Does that even work on 4chan? On /b/ threads can vanish in less than an hour. There used to be specialized sites such as 4chanarchive to fill the gap, but last I checked most are dead.

Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

#132

Post by adamrezich »

If anyone's trying to figure out what the "Haruhi Problem" is, logically, because it took me awhile to grok:

You have a `n`-episode show, and you want to watch every episode in every possible order. However, if one series-watch-through ends with episode `x` and the next series-watch-through in sequence begins with that same episode `x`, you don't have to watch episode `x` twice in a row. Given these constraints, how do you find the "ideal" way to watch through the entire series, in all possible combinations, in the shortest number of episodes?

Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

#133

Post by ncmncm »

The authors of FFTW published a paper about their computational method, an early example of "cache-oblivious" array traversal order. (In this method, uses of elements noodle around in small areas, getting a free locality boost. Typically they use a Hilbert or Peano path.) They refused to cite Todd Veldhuizen, who had done it (with plenty of publicity) a year before. They refused to discuss why, but it is apparent that it was because Veldhuizen had published in Dr. Dobb's Journal of Computer Orthodontia ("Running light without overbyte").

Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

#134

Post by eindiran »

throwawaymath wrote: post #112
rspeer wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that nobody knows how to cite it, it's that nobody wants to cite things from outside of academia, perhaps because it lowers their own perceived prestige. I have seen this in computational linguistics where people frequently don't cite their data sources, which often come from outside of the field or outside academia altogether. Instead they put a link to a webpage in a footnote, which does nothing for assign…

To give you a counterpoint, I've read plenty of computer science and mathematics papers where someone cited an arXiv paper by an obscure or unknown researcher. I've even seen blog posts and email correspondence cited. In fact, in one of my own papers I cited an unpublished manuscript which you can't even find on the internet - you have to personally contact the author, who hasn't touched the thing in the last 25 year…

I think the difference is that arXiv papers don't have the same perceptions of low prestige attached as a random blog or a 4chan thread does. The issue isn't that the work is (yet) unpublished or that its obscure: its that it is from outside academia or traditionally prestigious sources.

Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

#135

Post by carbocation »

throwawaymath wrote: post #112
rspeer wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that nobody knows how to cite it, it's that nobody wants to cite things from outside of academia, perhaps because it lowers their own perceived prestige. I have seen this in computational linguistics where people frequently don't cite their data sources, which often come from outside of the field or outside academia altogether. Instead they put a link to a webpage in a footnote, which does nothing for assign…

To give you a counterpoint, I've read plenty of computer science and mathematics papers where someone cited an arXiv paper by an obscure or unknown researcher. I've even seen blog posts and email correspondence cited. In fact, in one of my own papers I cited an unpublished manuscript which you can't even find on the internet - you have to personally contact the author, who hasn't touched the thing in the last 25 year…

I have a little personal write-up that is cited in the academic medical literature.

Post: http://james.pirruccello.us/index.php?title=Gamma_gap

Paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4668045/

Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

#136

Post by coliveira »

rspeer wrote: post #86
tokai wrote: post #73

It is a fun little event that something posted on 4chan is used in a research paper. But that nobody knows how it should be cited is just plain wrong. They should maybe contact their research library and get a introduction to citing. All citation styles I know of can handle web citations. Anonymous authors is nothing new either. And you have things like the internet archive or Webcite[0] to make sure the web document…

It's not that nobody knows how to cite it, it's that nobody wants to cite things from outside of academia, perhaps because it lowers their own perceived prestige. I have seen this in computational linguistics where people frequently don't cite their data sources, which often come from outside of the field or outside academia altogether. Instead they put a link to a webpage in a footnote, which does nothing for assign…

I don't see a problem with a footnote entry, this is a form of credit. The issue with bibliographic entries is that they are each day more automatically processed, so publishers and editors try to avoid non-standard entries. On the other hand, if you're publishing something in a blog or webpage you're not looking for the kind of credit that is given on a bibliographic citation, so a footnote seems to be just fine.

Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

#138

Post by swebs »

prepend wrote: post #120
tokai wrote: post #73

It is a fun little event that something posted on 4chan is used in a research paper. But that nobody knows how it should be cited is just plain wrong. They should maybe contact their research library and get a introduction to citing. All citation styles I know of can handle web citations. Anonymous authors is nothing new either. And you have things like the internet archive or Webcite[0] to make sure the web document…

I read this more that if they follow common web citation guidelines, there’s a strong probability that 4chan will replace the target with goatse, or something worse.

You can't direct link to 4chan anyway, as posts are cycled out and deleted quite frequently. You would have to archive the page and link to that.

Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

#139

Post by huntie »

kipchak wrote: post #127
huntie wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe? I've always attributed the fall to a combination of the fappening, Moot's departure, and the 2016 elections. The huge influx of new users combined with a change in moderation absolutely destroyed the site. My memory isn't so good, but I don't think there was much political content outside of /pol/ and /b/ until 2015 or so. Might be dependent on what boards you browsed though. I think you're right about Nazis c…

For what it's worth the increase in traffic from 2010 onward was largely mobile users, with desktop users staying around 50M, while total users grew to a peak of about 133m at the start of 2018.

Yeah, I still see people suggesting that phone-posters should be banned. I wonder what the site would be like if it had been implemented. I didn't know how large the numbers were though, that is nuts. Looking at the general quality of the site though, it makes sense.

Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

#140

Post by syn0byte »

throwawaymath wrote: post #105
syn0byte wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a proof. It validates itself or it doesn't.

That's a non-answer. Peer review is a thing in mathematics precisely because it's difficult to verify if a proof is valid. In a sense you can say something like, "A proof is valid or it isn't", but that's vacuous because you still need someone to check it. There are many examples available of proofs which have been initially accepted but later discredited in the mathematical community. There are also many examples of…

Yes, it was a mostly non-answer to a mostly non-question. It was in response to citing a proof in your own work, not a comment on the need for peer review of proofs in general.

The bulk of your rebuttal is exactly my own point. Peer review doesn't actually prove anything one way or the other. The ultimate truthfulness of a cited proof is all that matters. The idea that cited proofs should be peer reviewed don't add intrinsic validity, it just fosters academic laziness.

"Boy that's a fantastical claim that doesn't seem right; but all the citations are peer reviewed and I see nothing obviously wrong so I guess its true!" -OR- "Boy That's a fantastical claim that doesn't seem right; I don't see anything obviously wrong here so lets double check the cited proofs they based this on."

What's the practical upside to only using peer-reviewed proofs besides speed at the cost of fidelity? What's the practical downside to using unreviewed proofs besides "more work"?

Post reply on HN