I'm writing a small and simple paper to finish my graduation, I never wrote or published anything before. Is about some irrational/transcendental numbers. I was mentioning some numbers that it's not know to be irrational or not, famous ones are: $e\pi, e+\pi$ and other not so famous like $\ln \pi, e^e, \pi^\pi$. So I was looking where I could find a reference to these statements. And I found on arXiv Some transcendence results from a harmless irrationality theorem that states all that. So I thought: "perfect".

However... on arXiv is also:

The Product $eπ$ Is Irrational

The Zeta Quotient $ζ(3)/π^3$ is Irrational

Notice that the two papers above are by the same person (I think this person solved so many open problems that Fields Medal should change the $4$ years rule and give him a medal every week). And I found in arXiv, but can't find the link, that all odd zeta values are irrational.

Well, one simple way to check if the paper is trustworthy or not is to see if it has been published somewhere. The first link was published, so everything is ok. But, for example, the proof of the weak goldbach conjecture was posted in arXiv but never published anywhere else. From the wikipedia page Goldbach's weak conjecture : "In 2013, Harald Helfgott published a proof of Goldbach's weak conjecture. As of 2018, the proof is widely accepted in the mathematics community, but it has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal."

So how much can one trust arXiv to use it as a reference? I think there is a lot there that is true, but is also not published somewhere else, like the weak Goldbach conjecture proof. But also a lot there is wrong and obvious not published.

I would appreciate improved tags because I don't know the proper ones. Thanks for the answers!

  • 14
    $\begingroup$ In math one trusts something because one judges it correct, not because of where it is published. However, the ArXiv is more reliable than many journals. $\endgroup$
    – Dan Fox
    Commented Jul 2, 2019 at 5:17
  • 24
    $\begingroup$ math.GM is known to be a trashcan tag. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 2, 2019 at 5:38
  • 15
    $\begingroup$ math.GM and many revisions to other papers by the same author is a bad sign. All of a person's papers in math.GM means they likely aren't doing serious work. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts
    Commented Jul 2, 2019 at 5:59
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Also, this type of question is usually more appropriate for academica.stackexchange, where there are a number of active mathematicians. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts
    Commented Jul 2, 2019 at 6:48
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ You point out the example of the weak Goldbach conjecture but I feel this is the exception. In general good correct maths results are published in a peer reviewed journal. That should be the standard to use. The common problem here is the time frame, so results are on arxiv, presumably correct but not yet published in a peer reviewed journal. The number of results that are widely seen as correct and significant, on arxiv and not going to be published in peer reviewed journal is very very small. $\endgroup$
    – quarague
    Commented Jul 2, 2019 at 8:17

1 Answer 1


In general it is poor scholarly practice to make a final decision about how trustworthy something is solely on the basis of where it appears, whether it's the arXiv or a published journal. As Vladimir Voevodsky eloquently explained some years ago, famous results by famous people in famous journals can still be wrong.

In your case, if all you want a reference for is the fact that some constants are not known to be irrational or transcendental, then presumably nothing important in your paper logically depends on this claim being true, so it does not matter all that much how reliable the reference is. If your claim is wrong, the worst that can happen is that someone will be annoyed that their great paper solving the problem was overlooked by you, or someone might work on a solved problem thinking that it is unsolved. So in my opinion it's fine to cite the arXiv paper in this case.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.