Timeline for Is it a reasonable way to write a research article assuming truth of a conjecture?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 14, 2021 at 13:11 | vote | accept | MAS | ||
| Feb 14, 2021 at 13:04 | history | edited | MAS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 30 characters in body
|
| Feb 14, 2021 at 13:02 | vote | accept | MAS | ||
| Feb 14, 2021 at 13:11 | |||||
| Feb 13, 2021 at 23:29 | comment | added | Zach H | One point I haven't seen mentioned: proving results like this can be a key step in eventually proving a conjecture is false. | |
| Feb 13, 2021 at 22:01 | answer | added | nanoman | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 13, 2021 at 16:47 | comment | added | Tim Campion | This is also a matter of course in theoretical computer science, where there are all sorts of conjectures in the vein of $P \neq NP$ to which other statements are reduced. | |
| Feb 13, 2021 at 15:31 | comment | added | YCor | Now whether this can be done (whether a journal should publish it) depends on the conjecture. Whether it's a 150 years old conjecture that it widely expected to hold, with serious evidence, or a conjecture asked 2 years ago in the author's unpublished preprint, makes the picture a little different (of course these are extreme cases). | |
| Feb 13, 2021 at 15:30 | comment | added | YCor | It seems to me a little awkwardly/informally stated. The article itself doesn't assume truth of the conjecture. But the main result of the article (and hence the interest of the article) can assume truth of the conjecture. So, if the conjecture fails, the article is not false, it's just void. By the way it can be useful to clearly separate, in the paper, what relies and what doesn't rely on the conjecture. | |
| Feb 13, 2021 at 14:46 | answer | added | John Coleman | timeline score: 17 | |
| Feb 13, 2021 at 14:26 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Feb 13, 2021 at 14:10 | answer | added | David White | timeline score: 15 | |
| Feb 13, 2021 at 12:51 | comment | added | MAS | I am thankful to all of the above beautiful comments | |
| Feb 13, 2021 at 7:31 | history | edited | gmvh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed formatting (math mode should not be used for emphasis), added tag
|
| Feb 13, 2021 at 6:29 | comment | added | Fedor Petrov | That's quite usual, especially in number theory. | |
| S Feb 13, 2021 at 5:44 | history | edited | Pietro Majer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed misprints
|
| S Feb 13, 2021 at 5:44 | history | suggested | markvs | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed misprints
|
| Feb 13, 2021 at 4:43 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 13, 2021 at 5:44 | |||||
| Feb 13, 2021 at 4:35 | comment | added | Will Sawin | The main thing you want to make sure is that your result is strong or interesting enough that the reader feels it was "worth" assuming the conjecture, and that your explanation of why the conjecture is plausible (whether by citing previous work or your own work) is clear. | |
| Feb 13, 2021 at 4:09 | comment | added | GH from MO | There are lots of excellent papers based on conjectures. | |
| Feb 13, 2021 at 4:00 | history | asked | MAS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |