The discussion centers on the challenges of verifying the novelty of a mathematical formula and the importance of understanding the current state of research before attempting to publish. Participants emphasize that significant scientific contributions require extensive training, typically a PhD, and familiarity with existing literature in peer-reviewed journals. The consensus is that if one must inquire about the originality of their work or where to publish, it is likely that their findings are not novel or of substantial interest.
PREREQUISITESMathematicians, researchers, and graduate students seeking to publish original work or verify the novelty of their findings will benefit from this discussion.
Thanks, it's helpful.Orodruin said:If you have to ask these questions, the most probable scenario is that you either have not discovered something new or that what you have is fundamentally misguided, trivial, or not of very large interest.
The way scientists communicate new results is through publishing in peer reviewed journals. In order to understand what is in those journals you will typically need scientific training in the particular field in the form of a PhD - scientists train for several years (closer to a decade) before being able to make novel contributions. The bottom line is that it is essentially impossible to make a contribution unless you know the current state of the field. To know the current state of the field you would have to be reading (and understanding) the material published in the very same journals you should try to publish in, which is why anyone who asks the question "where should I publish?" is likely to not have something publishable.