Hacker News Reader

Comment by WoahNoun | Hacker News Reader

This paper is bad.

Edit: For a math paper, this paper is badly written, structured, and organized even if the argument turns out to be correct. (Which is ~0% chance.)

View on HN

Maths papers aren't easy to write or organise. And whether a paper is well-structured is somewhat subjective unless we're writing for computers. That's not enough to knock it down.

Can you pin-point the first error?

That's not a valid argument against a paper being bad.

That was an honest question. I agree the paper is bad, but I struggle to find the first mistake.

I'm gonna guess it's the assumption that the intermediate steps of the algo can determine that a solution doesn't exist.

>As usual, if the solution does not exist, the process is terminated with a message "No solution at Level 2, Identity 2"

Maybe you can enlighten everyone on why exactly it is a bad paper, by pointing out the first red flag(s) found in the proof itself, assuming you have read and analysed the entire paper to get to that conclusion.

It is not good enough to draw a conclusion without a detailed explanation for a substantial claim like this 'proof'.

I have not read the paper, but being bad is not the same thing as being incorrect, so its weird people are asking for the first error.

For example, bad can mean confusing or poorly written.

Not everyone has the necessary background to see what's wrong with it.

But anyone who has read enough math and cs papers can see that this paper is clearly badly structured, written, and organized. It is a bad paper regardless of the correctness of the argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com