Timeline for Papers in which the questions were more interesting than the results
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2018 at 12:05 | comment | added | Jérôme JEAN-CHARLES | Questions are the heart of the matter. Any good question is an answer. Questions should stay and answers vanish. Sadly even the ratio of one question for one answer is far from being reached in most mathematical texts. | |
| May 20, 2018 at 10:50 | answer | added | Adrien | timeline score: 9 | |
| May 20, 2018 at 8:01 | history | reopened |
Adam P. Goucher David Handelman fedja Filippo Alberto Edoardo Leo Alonso |
||
| May 20, 2018 at 6:09 | comment | added | Filippo Alberto Edoardo | I voted to reopen. If we happen to share a smile beside deep and interesting results whose proof is incredibly hard, I won't find it a shame. | |
| May 20, 2018 at 0:21 | comment | added | fedja | I voted to reopen. After all, the answers may form a good collection of interesting open problems, so as long as the discussion is civilized and meaningful, why not to have it here? As to myself, I have always held an opinion that there are too many people around who can pose hard problems (or create them in some other ways) versus too few who can solve them, so I'd rather stand aside :-) | |
| May 19, 2018 at 21:12 | comment | added | Jim Conant | The Andrews-Curtis conjecture. | |
| May 19, 2018 at 20:46 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| May 20, 2018 at 8:05 | |||||
| May 19, 2018 at 19:27 | history | closed |
Andrés E. Caicedo user6976 Chris Godsil Stefan Kohl♦ Suvrit |
Not suitable for this site | |
| May 19, 2018 at 19:16 | comment | added | YCor | I'm clearly against big-list lists of recent papers (with some vague requirement), since it leads to promotion of recent work, including auto-promotion. Including papers of, say, at least 40 years old would, at the opposite, be a reasonable safeguard. (Even this being said, this remains very subjective.) | |
| May 19, 2018 at 19:10 | answer | added | Yiftach Barnea | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 19, 2018 at 17:55 | answer | added | Filippo Alberto Edoardo | timeline score: 8 | |
| May 19, 2018 at 14:14 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 19, 2018 at 14:13 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 19, 2018 at 19:29 | |||||
| May 19, 2018 at 14:03 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 16 | |
| May 19, 2018 at 13:56 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | Seems like any paper that introduces an interesting and difficult new conjecture could be an answer to this question. I will say that unless the conjecture is obviously of great importance then editors and referees tend to be biased against such papers. If the conjecture is new then how interesting can it really be? And if you couldn't prove it then clearly you're not a very good mathematician. | |
| May 19, 2018 at 13:51 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| May 19, 2018 at 13:47 | answer | added | Alexandre Eremenko | timeline score: 17 | |
| May 19, 2018 at 7:57 | answer | added | Peter Michor | timeline score: 8 | |
| May 19, 2018 at 5:17 | comment | added | Gro-Tsen | Re: "a fear that my papers fit this mold": I don't think that's something to fear, and this could even be a reason to be proud. Asking the right questions seems just as valuable in my eyes as providing the right answer. (But maybe I say so because my MO reputation comes more from questions than from answers. 😉) | |
| May 19, 2018 at 0:12 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | "The questions (often my own) I am unable to answer seem far more intriguing than what's actually in my papers...." I think a lot of us share that feeling. | |
| May 18, 2018 at 23:51 | review | First posts | |||
| May 19, 2018 at 0:07 | |||||
| May 18, 2018 at 23:47 | history | asked | Robert Palmer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |