berkeman said:
Welcome to PF.
Please be sure to read the PF Rules (see INFO at the top of the page). We do not allow personal speculation or discussing unpublished work here. We discuss mainstream science as published in the scientific literature (peer-reviewed journals and mainstream textbooks).
I can only assume on the remark being apropos of nothing coupled with the above introduction (unless you take exception to the dumb Erdos joke - which was), and having received the message privately and assumed the matter resolved, that you’re inviting open discussion about my first post requesting testing of the computational methods, and software attached to my paper in prepub.
Primarily I presented those 3 papers to invite criticism, testing, and beyond that share the software - I know are functional after years and hundreds of gigs of test outputs. The potential safety advantages to the software seemed ethically necessary to share in any case. Which I wont detail functionally so as to abide by your house rule (that I was fwiw unaware of — and it never occurred to me inquiry would be discouraged, and thats on me for not reading the rules. From my perspective my work comes from a space of applied mathematics, despite the vastly detailed Lean formalization, my work experience is the results either compute or do not, the equations either work or do not, and the results are either replicable or not. And everyone wants solutions yesterday. It’s also not a space impacted slightly by the causal factors of the replication crisis. It has to. For sake or argument without you having tested this you’ll have to take my word that they do compute, and recognize that objectively those who would invite criticism from an established community if they did not compute, are either prepared and confident that they do compute, or are delusional. In both cases I cant see how polite critique would not benefit the individual; or even negative reflection.
My office is a Tetris mass of "mainstream" textbooks and papers - to the point they collect on the floor at my feet, and the methods, are all sound and well sourced in my work — thus passing 8k plus lines of formalization. If people disagree with my work I invite that, always, a mathematical argument is the one language that either solidifies under scrutiny or dissipates.
I hope this resolves the matter. I don’t have much to offer beyond what I already have. This being one of maybe a dozen times I have ever posted on an internet forum of any kind, and it was for all of the above reasons, but primarily it seems an incompatibility with the logic of the space. No harm no foul.
