Timeline for Including alternative proofs
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 11 at 11:36 | vote | accept | Martin Brandenburg | ||
| Mar 31 at 16:33 | history | edited | David White | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added tags, minor edits
|
| Mar 31 at 16:24 | answer | added | David White | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 4, 2020 at 1:38 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Jan 3, 2020 at 1:35 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 3, 2020 at 14:10 | |||||
| Jan 3, 2020 at 1:18 | comment | added | LSpice | @RobertFurber, wow, I've never encountered that; sorry! To be clear, I was suggesting slightly re-configuring the appendix as an at least nominally stand-alone paper before posting it, not literally saying "this is an appendix to …". | |
| Jan 3, 2020 at 0:51 | comment | added | Robert Furber | @LSpice I tried putting a removed appendix up on the arXiv and it was rejected because they apparently have a policy of not accepting "supplements". The frequently capricious actions of the anonymous administrators of the arXiv have turned me rather sour on the idea of using it for anything other than publicizing papers that are already under submission to a journal. | |
| Jan 3, 2020 at 0:32 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Community Wiki? (My own feeling is: whatever you judge maximizes insight for the intended audience.) | |
| Jan 3, 2020 at 0:06 | history | edited | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 77 characters in body
|
| Jan 2, 2020 at 23:24 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Stan Wagon, Fourteen Proofs of a Result about Tiling a Rectangle, The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 94, 1987, pp. 601-617, won the Lester R. Ford award in 1988 (maa.org/programs/maa-awards/writing-awards/…), so there's some precedent for including multiple proofs. I don't know whether Robin Chapman's paper, Evaluating $\zeta(2)$ (empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/rjchapma/etc/zeta2.pdf), was ever formally published. | |
| Jan 2, 2020 at 21:30 | comment | added | LSpice | This is what appendices are for! Put the 'main' proof in the body and the alternate proofs in the appendices; it makes removing proofs the referee doesn't want as easy as chopping off a section, and requires no changes in the main body of the paper. (Also, an appendix so excised should be relatively easy to whip into shape as an independent paper for the arXiv.) | |
| Jan 2, 2020 at 21:23 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Mildly relevant anecdote: I have from before 2019 a moderately clunky but elementary proof of a small result related to jumping primes. You don't need the prime number theorem to understand this clunky proof, but knowing the PNT result sets you in a good frame of mind to approach the proof. A few weeks ago, I found a (almost magical by comparison) proof by induction for a more general result implying the small result. I'm putting both in to show the effects of a contrast in perspective. Gerhard "It Makes For Interesting Reading" Paseman, 2020.01.02. | |
| Jan 2, 2020 at 21:21 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | This cannot be answered in general terms. It depends on how important the theorem is, how different the proofs are etc. | |
| Jan 2, 2020 at 21:14 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | I think you should roll your own. I would bet that the referee (or able editor) would judge your journal version of the paper and tell you how many proofs to include. For your students or readers of whatever you throw on the web, my guess is that they often will pick the best proof to read, unless you use both/all methods throughout the paper. How you organize your self-published version is up to you, but Appendices should be socially acceptable. Gerhard "Socially Acceptable If Used Well" Paseman, 2020.01.02. | |
| Jan 2, 2020 at 21:09 | comment | added | Deane Yang | It’s up to you. | |
| Jan 2, 2020 at 21:04 | history | asked | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |