Hacker News Reader

Comment by fdej | Hacker News Reader

The submitted paper is well-written and appears to be correct, but it is far too short.

No reference is made to previous attempts to study Euler's conjecture or similar conjectures (there are surely a dozen other papers that ought to be cited in the introduction).

What led the authors to consider a computer search as opposed to any other approach? Does the method generalize?

It is indicated that the CDC 6600 was used. How was the programming done? How long time did the execution take? The instance is claimed to be "the smallest". In what norm? How can you be sure that the computer program did not skip any smaller examples?

The most serious problem with the paper, however, is that the only contribution is a purely computational statement which, though a counterexample to a conjecture, does not advance mathematical theory in any way.

Due to these shortcomings, my recommendation to the editor is to REJECT the submission.

View on HN

for anyone wondering, the parent is 100% sarcasm and making fun of editors. (The REJECT is the punchline).

You can tell by "How can you be sure that the computer program did not skip any smaller examples?"

However, in actuality it really is actually too short. For example, it would be far more interesting to us in 2016 to read this early computational result if it included "reference made to previous attempts to study Euler's conjecture or similar conjectures", also "What led the authors to consider a computer search as opposed to any other approach?" and so forth.

Also in 2016 it would be extremely interesting to know "How was the programming done? How long time did the execution take?" For purely history-of-computation reasons.

Also it would be really interesting for the authors to have listed their own views on the ramifications, i.e. in what way it advances mathematical theory (or not).

Even though the parent comment is sarcastic, as a reader in 2016, I got next to nothing out of the paper. If it had been rejected on the above (sarcastic) basis, and the authors had submitted a six-page version, it would be far more interesting to us. The same would have been true for contemporaries.

> though a counterexample to a conjecture, does not advance mathematical theory in any way.

[I realize it's sarcasm but in case it's not clear to everyone, I'll speak my mind about it]

I think it's a pretty serious advancement. Confirming a conjecture is just as important as invalidating it with a counter example. It doesn't matter if that counter example fits on one line.

Maybe my mind is warped, but I actually agree with that. The conjecture isn't the point. There are plenty of interesting counterexamples, but a direct search does nothing to advance mathematics.

It advances mathematics by saving the time of people who might otherwise try to prove a false conjecture?

Lol, as someone who is not in academia and math, I didn't recognize your joke while reading this for the first time.

> No reference is made to previous attempts to study Euler's conjecture or similar conjectures

Why should this be even necessary? There are surveys for that. Not every mathematician needs to be a historian. Nor do most people like to read the same introduction in every paper on a certain topic.

While I acknowledge the humor intended, it is important to note that nipping incorrect conjectures before people waste time building edifices atop them, is an extremely good outcome. In the strongest possible manner, this advances mathematics by labeling incorrect pathways as being incorrect.

You only need one counterexample to a theory or conjecture to prove it wrong.

One is welcome to suggest improvements but to reject on that they owe more is BS anti science, it's politics.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com