Timeline for Guidelines for writing proofs in math papers [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 27, 2015 at 1:50 | comment | added | 0 _ | There is no excuse for writing only a prose proof: research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/proof.pdf | |
| May 27, 2014 at 8:25 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| May 27, 2014 at 9:57 | |||||
| May 27, 2014 at 8:08 | history | edited | Reza Rezazadegan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added links for "proof wars"
|
| May 27, 2014 at 7:55 | comment | added | Reza Rezazadegan | @ToddTrimble I think there are still things that almost everybody agrees to. For example it is not generally accepted if the proof of a theorem in section 2 uses a lemma in section 3 and the proof of that lemma uses another lemma in section 2 (although that won't result in an apocalypse). Also the purpose for such guidelines is not "esthetics, personal ethics", etc but to make it easier for the referee/reviewer to analyze the paper. I agree that this is too broad but there are many things that naturally come to mind for example a notation glossary would make reading a 50+ page paper easier. | |
| May 26, 2014 at 21:45 | history | closed |
Steven Gubkin Andy Putman Lucia Neil Strickland Deane Yang |
Needs more focus | |
| May 26, 2014 at 21:39 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | The question would have been closed as "subjective and argumentative" in the old days of MO. There are some like Leslie Lamport who believe in highly detailed and structured proofs, not far from formal proofs. Others believe in much less detail. Impossible to find a consensus on "best practice"; this is a highly individual decision based on esthetics, personal ethics, and experience. | |
| May 26, 2014 at 21:37 | answer | added | Francois Ziegler | timeline score: 11 | |
| May 26, 2014 at 21:34 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| May 26, 2014 at 21:24 | comment | added | Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen | What are these proof wars about? | |
| May 26, 2014 at 21:09 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 26, 2014 at 21:45 | |||||
| May 26, 2014 at 20:58 | history | edited | Reza Rezazadegan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor
|
| May 26, 2014 at 20:53 | comment | added | Steven Gubkin | I have voted to close. This is better suited to a blog format. | |
| S May 26, 2014 at 20:49 | answer | added | Reza Rezazadegan | timeline score: 8 | |
| S May 26, 2014 at 20:49 | history | asked | Reza Rezazadegan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |