Timeline for Best way to present (or avoid) a tedious epsilon argument in a paper
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2011 at 0:40 | comment | added | Brendan McKay | I don't see that having details in an arXiv paper that few people read is worse than having a long section in a journal that few people read. Some proofs are long and tedious no matter how hard we try to improve them. A real-life example of where a journal liked this arrangement was where a proof had some 20+ pages of technical analysis that were more or less along the same lines as previously published proofs. The journal wasn't happy about publishing 20 pages of calculation with no innovative ideas in it, and yet the theorem that relied on it was great. The compromise made everyone happy. | |
| Sep 29, 2011 at 18:27 | comment | added | Marcin Kotowski | I have doubts whether this solution promotes a good writing and publishing culture. Chances are few people will bother to read the "full version" and therefore one loses an incentive to polish the proof. Splitting paper into two seems a bit artificial to me. In programming, when you have to structure your code in artificial way, there might be something wrong deeper in the flow of your program. If you cannot structure your paper in a way that is readable, maybe it means you should rethink the proofs/try to improve the flow of the argument. | |
| Sep 29, 2011 at 15:23 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| Sep 29, 2011 at 7:39 | history | answered | Brendan McKay | CC BY-SA 3.0 |