Timeline for Most harmful heuristic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 24, 2020 at 10:03 | comment | added | user400188 | Sorry, I read your first comment and got that impression. In retrospect it fits perfectly with the question asked. | |
| Sep 24, 2020 at 9:58 | comment | added | darij grinberg | @user400188: It's not false as a statement; it is harmful as a heuristic. | |
| Sep 24, 2020 at 9:53 | comment | added | user400188 | I don't think this statement is false. A single proof is sufficient to show that something is true, and a second is not necessary. While I do agree that improved proofs benefit society, I think you have missed the point of this statement. | |
| Oct 6, 2017 at 4:34 | comment | added | Michael Cotton | A genuinely better proof, in the sense that you feel pretty certain your argument is easier to follow/more intuitive and perhaps even shorter, is ALWAYS of value. And we should not discourage people from publishing their work when they chance upon such an improvement. It makes the field more accessible to newcomers and speeds up advancement. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 22:44 | comment | added | darij grinberg | I am not quoting anything. I am merely trying to clarify that both of my sentences are part of the false heuristic, rather than the first being the false heuristic and the second being its refutation. Maybe I should have used parentheses, but I don't want to be that guy. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 21:23 | comment | added | eins6180 | Is this a quote? If yes, who do you quote? | |
| Apr 25, 2010 at 15:15 | history | answered | darij grinberg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |