Timeline for "Questions" of the type "I have written something, please give me feedback"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 14, 2017 at 5:37 | comment | added | Manfred Weis | @GerhardPaseman: some coincidences are really amazing; yesterday I finally found a simple TSP heuristic that produces very good tours in $O(n^3)$ and after your ray of light hit me, I am confident, that it will be appreciated by one or the other researcher. | |
| Dec 13, 2017 at 18:36 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | @Manfred: As a delayed ray of light, let me offer the (for me uplifting) story: while helping run an Internet access company in the 90's, I took my ICM slide presentation on Hadamard matrices and the determinant spectrum problem and put it on the web on a company server. A few years later some other researchers found it and used and extended some of the results. This without being affiliated with any research institution. Do good work, and present it well, and the researchers will find it. Gerhard "Choose Your Search Keywords Well" Paseman, 2017.12.13. | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Aug 16, 2014 at 11:54 | comment | added | Manfred Weis | @PerAlexandersson finding someone in the same field is one of the difficulties; the point with the lack of presentation skills is also true in my case, whereas checking for already known results is nowadays a lot easier. I usually do a lot google searching and I "review" my findings over some time before being confident that there may be something to it. But I really appreciate your advice. | |
| Aug 16, 2014 at 11:37 | comment | added | Per Alexandersson | @ManfredWeis: Get in contact with mathematicians in the same field. Type down your findings in LaTeX. A lot of amateur mathematicians seem to spend much time on their own research, but not enough time to learn how to present it, or if it is of actual interest and/or already known. | |
| Aug 16, 2014 at 10:11 | comment | added | Manfred Weis | I am also in the situation of being an amateur mathematician for whom the research community is a big black box and do not know, what to do with findings, that could be of interest to that community. I learned that MO isn't the right place to do that and I do not know of an alternative way to do it. A concrete example of such a finding is the role of Moebius Ladder graphs in the Hamilton Cycle Problem. | |
| Aug 5, 2014 at 17:59 | comment | added | user9072 | On the specific proposal of creating tags: this would be meta tags and these are better avoided. Besides tags like this would then (presumably) have a negative touch (at least with some), which is further reason not to create them. | |
| Aug 5, 2014 at 17:44 | comment | added | user9072 | @StefanKohl what do you mean by "the material in question"? It sounds as if you want to take as criterion the quality of the preprint. Could you please clarify your intent. | |
| Aug 5, 2014 at 17:16 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | While 927 is relevant, it concerns a different situation. It is one thing to post critique of a preprint where the author themselves explicitly asked for it, and another thing for a preprint by a third party that isn’t even aware of it. | |
| Aug 5, 2014 at 17:01 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @StefanKohl I agree that sensible judgment on individual cases is needed. | |
| Aug 5, 2014 at 16:59 | comment | added | The Masked Avenger | Possible meta duplicate: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/927/… | |
| Aug 5, 2014 at 16:55 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl Mod | @YemonChoi: I agree that MO neither is nor should be a common place to ask for feedback on preprints -- but I would not be dogmatic here. Rather I suggest to make further actions (closing/removing the post or responding, etc.) depend on the quality of the material in question. | |
| Aug 5, 2014 at 16:17 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Also, on a different point, I am very sceptical that MO is really a representative group of the mathematical community, whether or not it is a "large group". This is admittedly based on my anecdotal observations from talking to people at conferences. | |
| Aug 5, 2014 at 16:16 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Just to address one of your points: I do not think MO is the right place for young mathematicians to solicit feedback on their preprints. While I appreciate it can be difficult for those not plugged into a supportive network of more senior mathematicians, it is surely better for these people to seek to get their work recognized in meetings specializing in their area. | |
| Aug 5, 2014 at 15:42 | history | edited | Per Alexandersson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 556 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2014 at 14:49 | history | asked | Per Alexandersson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |