Timeline for Citing exercises in an article
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2021 at 9:21 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Stefan Kohl♦ | ||
| May 3, 2017 at 6:15 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @Gerald Edgar: Polya-Szego has hints and references, rather than solutions. | |
| May 3, 2017 at 5:14 | comment | added | Matemáticos Chibchas | @NoamD.Elkies "(...) is a good principle but sometimes unworkable". Well, my impression is that is not just "sometimes" but "usually". | |
| May 2, 2017 at 21:52 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @AlexandreEremenko : You might be thinking about this MO question: mathoverflow.net/questions/23758/… | |
| May 2, 2017 at 21:48 | comment | added | roy smith | i would cite Hironaka's resolution of singularities, but would still feel somewhat guilty about not having understood the proof. I.e. I agree with Alexandre in principle, but am not entirely true to my own principles. | |
| May 2, 2017 at 21:47 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | Polya-Szego is not a good example for this. Sure, it has exercises. But it also has the solutions. | |
| May 2, 2017 at 17:49 | comment | added | Michael Lugo | @SteveHuntsman: I'd certainly trust an exercise from Knuth. (And the books include solutions or pointers to solutions to most exercises, although I'm not sure if that falls off at high difficulties.) | |
| May 2, 2017 at 17:44 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @Noam D. Elkies: I agree. This point was once discussed at length on MO, sorry I don't remember the exact reference. | |
| May 2, 2017 at 17:42 | comment | added | Noam D. Elkies | BTW "know and understand the proofs of EVERYTHING one uses in a paper" is a good principle but sometimes unworkable -- an important example is the classification of finite simple groups and various results that depend on it. | |
| May 2, 2017 at 17:32 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @Noam D. Elkies: yes. But people usually do not care to dig out the original source: they generally trust Gradshtein-Ryzhik. | |
| May 2, 2017 at 17:26 | comment | added | Noam D. Elkies | Gradshtein-Ryzhik has a citation for every formula. But often the citation is to an earlier table of integrals, which brings one no closer to an actual proof . . . | |
| May 2, 2017 at 17:19 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @Steve Huntsman: My principle is that one has to know and understand the proofs of EVERYTHING one uses in a paper. | |
| May 2, 2017 at 17:12 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 60 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2017 at 17:06 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 60 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2017 at 17:04 | comment | added | Steve Huntsman | An exercise rated 40 or higher in Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming would not necessarily be something that one should expect to solve in such a context... | |
| May 2, 2017 at 17:01 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 174 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2017 at 17:00 | vote | accept | efs | ||
| May 2, 2017 at 16:59 | comment | added | Leo Alonso | I would include a solution or at least a hint, to save time to your readers. | |
| May 2, 2017 at 16:57 | history | answered | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 3.0 |