On posting equations, identities, etc.

  • Thread starter Thread starter mesa
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the strict rules of the Physics Forum regarding the posting of mathematical proofs and theories, emphasizing that only content published in standard textbooks or journals is permitted. Participants express concern that allowing personal theories could lead to clutter and an influx of unverified claims, particularly regarding well-known mathematical problems. The forum's primary goal is to facilitate understanding of established science rather than to advance new theories, which are better suited for academic journals. There is a consensus that while mathematics is proof-based, the forum's structure is not designed for the validation of new proofs or theories. Ultimately, the forum aims to maintain clarity and focus on mainstream scientific knowledge.
mesa
Gold Member
Messages
694
Reaction score
36
Theory is broad and can be subjective so it makes sense that 'personal theories' (or in most cases 'conjecture at best') are not allowed on PF however mathematics is proof based so how does that violate our terms of use? Perhaps I am missing something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The rules are clear, if it's not published in a standard textbook or in a journal, then it's not allowed. Exceptions can always be made of course if the mentors give their explicit consent.

I don't want hundreds of people giving "proofs" for Fermat's last theorem or "counterexamples" for Cantor's diagonalization argument. So if it hasn't appeared in mainstream sources, then it's not allowed.
 
micromass said:
The rules are clear, if it's not published in a standard textbook or in a journal, then it's not allowed. Exceptions can always be made of course if the mentors give their explicit consent.

I don't want hundreds of people giving "proofs" for Fermat's last theorem or "counterexamples" for Cantor's diagonalization argument. So if it hasn't appeared in mainstream sources, then it's not allowed.

Okay, so you suggest the issue is in that we will get too 'cluttered' in the process and that is the problem. PF has been around for awhile so I would imagine there is 'case' history for such things?
 
mesa said:
Okay, so you suggest the issue is in that we will get too 'cluttered' in the process and that is the problem. PF has been around for awhile so I would imagine there is 'case' history for such things?

Yes, there is.
 
micromass said:
Yes, there is.

That is too bad, it would seem reducing some minor clutter would take backseat to the progress of provable ideas but then again this is just a forum.

Thanks for the input.
 
mesa said:
That is too bad, it would seem reducing some minor clutter would take backseat to the progress of provable ideas but then again this is just a forum.

Thanks for the input.

See, this is a common mistake. The goal of this forum is not to advance science and mathematics. That's what academic journals are for. Even if we were to allow new theories here, there wouldn't be any new theory in math or physics that would need an internet forum.

Our goal is to help people (students, laymen,...) understand current and mainstream science.

Read also this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=617567#post4664231
 
micromass said:
See, this is a common mistake. The goal of this forum is not to advance science and mathematics. That's what academic journals are for. Even if we were to allow new theories here, there wouldn't be any new theory in math or physics that would need an internet forum.

It doesn't seem a mistake to see the Physics Forum has the potential to be more.

micromass said:
Read also this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=617567#post4664231

I have read it and understand the point but Math is not 'theory'. There is no arguing a Proof.
 
mesa said:
It doesn't seem a mistake to see the Physics Forum has the potential to be more.

No meaningful scientific content will ever be developed on an internet forum. If we allow personal theories, then the only thing we will get are crackpots.

I have read it and understand the point but Math is not 'theory'. There is no arguing a Proof.

That's very idealistic of you. But you should definitely read up on the history of mathematics then. There have been plenty of arguments about whether a proof was valid. Mathematicians criticized each other all the time.
Even now, there are plenty of arguments about proofs: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6514
And there have been plenty of proofs which were wrong: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/3...hematical-results-that-were-later-shown-wrong

It is best to deal with new proofs and new mathematical theories in professional math journals and not in an internet forum.
 
If an idea is shown to be wrong then it was never Proven to begin with. It seems doubtful Physics Forum would see many cases where it would be difficult to differentiate.
 
  • #10
We have a 'line in the sand' which is good for Theory but it seems time to extend it for Proofs.
 
  • #11
You have received your answer.
 

Similar threads

Praise My feedback, one month and half experience in PF so far
Replies
1
Views
3K
I Monumental Proof Settles Geometric Langlands Conjecture
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Questions regarding Kurepa's Conjecture
Replies
1
Views
2K
A The abc conjecture and Virasoro algebra
Replies
1
Views
2K
Suggestion Personal theory forum/less ridicule
Replies
33
Views
4K
Insights How to Write a Math Proof and Their Structure
Replies
2
Views
2K
How do you create a link to a specific post?
Replies
13
Views
2K
I Born rule as an axiom or as a theorem?
Replies
7
Views
2K
I How deep does it need to go for a physics theory to be consistent?
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
I QFT made Bohmian mechanics a non-starter: missed opportunities?
8
Replies
376
Views
20K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top