Hacker News Reader

I don't remember there being any actual proofs in that paper although I only skimmed it. There were a couple of equations and some hand-wavy "it can be shown using... it is not hard to show" remarks. This is the kind of paper that my pure math friends would deride as "physics math" :-)

View on HN

The whole paper is a proof with the displayed equations representing the key points and solutions. The ‘remarks’ that seem to annoy you are merely the author adjectives to qualify the underlying approach, and to avoid the trivial (for the author) intermediate steps. I highly doubt that you and your ‘friends’ are going to find a single mathematical mistake in this humoristic paper (the actual work of the author being quite full of your standard Lemma/Theorem/Proof sectioning without which you seem to be lost).

I did not claim that the paper contained any mistakes. Rigorous proofs do much more than simply eliminate the possibility of mistakes (though they do that too); they make the argument accessible to a wider mathematically literate audience who may not be familiar with techniques which are standard in the author's field. I know a not-inconsiderable amount of graduate-level probability and a bit of stat phys and yet still this paper is not a trivial read. I'm sure if I stared at it for a day I could figure out the entire argument, but the point is I don't have a whole day. Theorems and Lemmas are a protocol for mathematicians to communicate efficiently. Considering the level of offense you have summoned up, I assume you must be in some mathematical field, so I am surprised you do not appreciate this.

"physics math" is pretty good for a biologist http://xkcd.com/435/.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com