Thomas KahleIch habe kürzlich zum ersten Mal in meinem Leben bei einem Phishing Angriff Geld verloren und das ging so wie hier im langen 🧵 erzählt.
Arend Bayer
@arendbayer
- 95 Followers
- 65 Following
- 50 Posts
Mathematician (Algebraic Geometry) at University of Edinburgh.
Chris Grossack (she/they)Hm... Recently I've been having a lot of trouble trying to tell the difference between
1. Things that are "well known" and published in a paper I haven't read
2. Things that are "well known" and lots of people have proven it privately, but for some reason or other nobody has actually published it
3. Things that are "well known" and lots of people kind of see a sketch of a proof, but there's plenty of details to be checked
4. Things that are "well known" mainly in the sense that some expert or other basically conjectured it at some point and everyone believed them. Lots of people can see the moral truth, but even finding a framework in which to check the details is semi-open
I'm curious if other people in #math, especially #categorytheory, experience this (I think people do). I'm also curious how people handle it when deciding what to think about (and later, what to publish).
Obviously feel free to boost this and reply with your Thoughts™. I'm interested in getting as many opinions as possible. Including thoughts from people outside CT, and even outside Math/CS if you've experienced similar feelings!
P.S.: I particularly like the "inverted pyramide" that I didn't know. I think it's an excellent ideal to aspire to for introductions to math articles. I see many introductions that could be improved by moving closer to this ideal - no I don't want to read a page of background before getting to the description of the content of the paper!
This article, by @adamjkucharski on scientific writing, is short and great. Mathematical writing differs from other scientific writing, but I think all his rules are highly relevant for mathematical writing, too.
https://kucharski.substack.com/p/some-tips-for-scientific-writing
Martin EscardoSomebody asked, in mathoverflow, "What is the motivation for infinity category theory?" [1].
The end of the answer by D.-C. Cisinski is the following (but it is also worth reading the beginning):
"At the end of the day, ∞-category theory looks very much like ordinary category theory, except that we can always reduce our computations to contexts in which there is only one way to identify objects: isomorphisms. This has to be compared with the zoo: equality, isomorphism, equivalence of categories, equivalence of 2-categories, homotopy equivalence, quasi-isomorphisms... That turns the process of gluing mathematical objects much more natural (in fact possible) in ∞-category theory, which is the basic tool to do any kind of geometry. That is why there is no turning back, I think."
[1] https://mathoverflow.net/questions/450835/what-is-the-motivation-for-infinity-category-theory
1/
Dear Taylor & Francis,
no, I am not going to fill out a profile with Institution, Country and keywords just to *decline* a *referee request*.
Kind regards, Arend Bayer
But mathematically, the merits of the article should stand on its own, and as an editor rather make the decision based on the same case for the article that the referees and readers get to see.
4/n, n=4
4/n, n=4
Of course, there are exceptions. Maybe the article got rejected from another journal despite a positive referee report; in that case, you could suggest to contact the editors of that journal to obtain this report--which usually editors will be happy to do, if the referee gives permission. Or maybe you want to clarify that this article originally was part of a larger preprint, and explain why you decided to split the paper.
3/n
3/n
Editors will look at your abstract and introduction, and if the abstract and introduction don't do a good enough job highlighting your strongest results, you should improve the abstract and introduction instead. 2/n
A while back, I saw some advice on how to draft a letter to the editors, accompanying the submission of an article to a journal.
Here is mine, for math journals: write a version of
"Dear editors,
please find attached our article XYZ, which we submit for publication in Journal of ABC.
Thank you for handling the article.
Best wishes,
John Doe (for the authors)"
That's it, that's the letter.
Do you feel the need to write more, highlighting the strongest results of the article? 1/n