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

The shortest papers ever published (2016)

paperpile.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)

#71

Post by thaumasiotes »

blauditore wrote: post #65
aquafox wrote: post #45

Not a paper, but 2×3×5×7×11×13 + 1 = 59×509 is a short counter example to the widespread misconception that adding one to the product of the first n consecutive prime numbers always yields a prime number. The reason you get away with this in the infinitely-many-prime-numbers proof is that the new number may not be prime, but can be written as a product of primes that are distinct from the first n primes. Thus you sti…

Is it really a "widespread misconception"? Anyone who spends just a little time on this will notice, even without a strong mathematics background.

There are a gigantic number of widespread misconceptions that anyone who spent even a little time on the issue would immediately notice are false.

Phil Plait used to complain about people who told him the moon wasn't visible during the day.

Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)

#72

Post by kevinwang »

rawling wrote: post #10
quickthrower2 wrote: post #5

Can someone explain the n^2 + 2 triangles paper?

The paper doesn't answer the problem in its title (n²+1) but demonstrates two different "advancements" towards it (n²+2) > We have posed a fine (in our opinion) open problem and reported two distinct “behold-style” proofs of our advance on this problem. There's also a linked PDF which, if I'm reading it correctly, trivially proves n²+1 is impossible.

No, n^2+1 is an open problem (conjectured to be impossible though)

Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)

#73

Post by dillydogg »

3abiton wrote: post #38
ramraj07 wrote: post #25

When I saw this paper about “Royalactin” in Nature [1], it was fascinating subject matter for one but I was impressed that it was a single author non theoretical original research article in a high impact journal. I thought it was baller. Have been trying to search for anything similar published in recent times and have come across empty. I feel it’s emblematic how impossible it is to make any great biology breakthro…

Now with LLM, that might not be far fetched.

I don't see how LLM would allow someone to do all of the experiments found in this paper. How do you think an LLM would promote more lone wolf science?

There's some solid microbiology here which underpins the quality of the science.

Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)

#74

Post by arrowsmith »

arnaudvalette wrote: post #67
FireBeyond wrote: post #27

Vaguely related but I remember the tale of an author on vacation after publication of his latest novel. He telegramed his publisher to enquire about reception: “?” Publisher replied: “!”

! evokes to me the "good move" chess notation, but also the MGS way of telling the player when the AI has spotted Snake. It eventually leads me to hear the MGS exclamation mark sound when I play or assist to a game of chess and that I spot a good move.

For those who played less PlayStation as a child than I did: MGS = Metal Gear Solid

Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)

#76

Post by sigmoid10 »

belter wrote: post #69
MBlume wrote: post #36

This neglects the classic paper published in The Annals of Improbable Research, The Effects of Peanut Butter on the Rotation of the Earth: https://improbable.com/airchives/classical/articles/peanut_b...

I call for the paper to be retracted! Peanut cultivation requires water with the corresponding extraction of groundwater. Extraction of large amounts of groundwater can cause land subsidence and change the local topography. If done on an extremely large scale...There could be a tiny effect on Earth's rotation.

Yeah, this paper is a joke even among joke paper standards. It's just a random, one sentence hypothesis without any argument or even evidence.

Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)

#77

Post by Ar-Curunir »

jacurtis wrote: post #70
quickthrower2 wrote: post #5

Can someone explain the n^2 + 2 triangles paper?

I think the fact that you have to ask this proves that it is objectively a bad paper. The whole point of academic papers is to contribute to the larger global knowledgebase. You acknowledge the work that was done before, you submit your contribution and then you suggest how people can build or expand upon your work. This paper in question is just trying to be a mic-drop, like a middle-finger to academia. Generally re…

While providing introducing the problem and motivating itis common in CS paper, it's not a common practice in mathematics.

Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)

#78

Post by MalcolmDwyer »

arnaudvalette wrote: post #67
FireBeyond wrote: post #27

Vaguely related but I remember the tale of an author on vacation after publication of his latest novel. He telegramed his publisher to enquire about reception: “?” Publisher replied: “!”

! evokes to me the "good move" chess notation, but also the MGS way of telling the player when the AI has spotted Snake. It eventually leads me to hear the MGS exclamation mark sound when I play or assist to a game of chess and that I spot a good move.

I can't say I remember the associated sound, but the on-screen "!" goes all the way back to the original Metal Gear for NES.

Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)

#79

Post by Sniffnoy »

tgv wrote: post #51
aquafox wrote: post #45

Not a paper, but 2×3×5×7×11×13 + 1 = 59×509 is a short counter example to the widespread misconception that adding one to the product of the first n consecutive prime numbers always yields a prime number. The reason you get away with this in the infinitely-many-prime-numbers proof is that the new number may not be prime, but can be written as a product of primes that are distinct from the first n primes. Thus you sti…

I think this is not a problem because 59 nor 509 are in the list of prime numbers used (on the left side). Euclid's proof merely states that for every list of prime numbers, there's a new one, not in the list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_theorem#Euclid's_pr...

Yes, that's the point -- Euclid's proof doesn't require that, it works like you said; but it's a widespread misconception that it does work that way. It's a counterexample to the misconception, not to the real proof.

Re: The shortest papers ever published (2016)

#80

Post by eynsham »

Short abstracts such as ‘yes’, ‘no’, &c of papers whose titles are questions are amusing but not as helpful as those whose titles straightforwardly state the answer (e.g., ‘X is Y’ is preferable to ‘Is X Y?’ with abstract ‘yes’).
Post reply on HN