Brand new way of working out quality of papers

[Zurtex]

Someone here has worked out a way that applies to physics:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Anyone wishing to try and apply it to maths? I think it will be an easy transition :smile:

[CRGreathouse]

I agree that such a scale is needed in math (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0401052), but I'm not a fan of this crackpot index. Somehow citing incorrect premises and making vaccuous statements is acceptable (wih the -5 point starting 'credit', there's flexibility for 1- and 2-point mistakes), but the other behaviors aren't. I can think of many noncrackpots who would get negative scores... Erdos frequently offered prize money for proofs and counterexamples, many mention (for various reasons) their schooling, a brief mention of the duration of one's study of the material is not beyond the pale of belief, and so on.

Combined with the fact that Baez's own index rates itself as more of a crackpot than a paper with a dozen logical inconsistencies and half a dozen otherwise false statements... :tongue2:

[DeadWolfe]

lol

That's a great site. We must use it for judging eljose's next topic.

[CRGreathouse]

lol

That's a great site. We must use it for judging eljose's next topic.

So the next time he has a post, we should all just post ratings without mentioning the source or reason?

[DeadWolfe]

No, mention the source and the reason.

[matt grime]

It's not new. I used it to grade one of the doren shadmi "papers". I stopped when he scored 120 points.