Timeline for Math papers where the only issue is that someone else could've done it but didn't
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3, 2022 at 19:16 | comment | added | JoshuaZ | @SidharthGhoshal It certainly is plausible that a computer could handle part of it. One of the issues with for example the PNT things is that doing them in a general parametrized way is so much effort because each time you are often tweaking lots of different parameters with different things. That said, my guess is that if there were any sort of cycle that didn't obviously hit diminishing returns quickly, we'd even without computers recognize the bootstrap potential. But it does make for a fun idea, almost seems like it would be a good premise for a scifi story. | |
| Nov 3, 2022 at 19:10 | comment | added | Sidharth Ghoshal | The futurist in me says if we have enough straightforward improvements we could theoretically have programs which accept a new improvement as input and automatically generate thousands of "consequential improvements", and maybe if that gets big ENOUGH you could have some cycles in your improvement dependency graph so in the future a ridiculous thing like the following can happen: "a uninteresting but slightly better estimate on bounds for primes" --> "RH solved" | |
| Nov 2, 2022 at 6:23 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Asaf Karagila♦ | ||
| Nov 1, 2022 at 18:36 | comment | added | David White | I would love to have a "Journal of Straightforward improvements." | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 18:30 | history | edited | JoshuaZ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2022 at 18:21 | history | edited | JoshuaZ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2022 at 18:16 | history | answered | JoshuaZ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |