tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post2959995874215608532..comments2024-01-25T01:05:59.968-05:00Comments on WebDiarios de Motocicleta: FOCS 2009Mihaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11599372864611039927noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-5480760411275335342009-02-27T09:55:00.000-05:002009-02-27T09:55:00.000-05:00Anon wrote:Unfortunately, journals are sometimes q...Anon wrote:<BR/><I>Unfortunately, journals are sometimes quite slow, 3 years may not be enough</I><BR/><BR/>This doesn't really matter nowadays. We have arXiv, personal web pages, and online technical reports that allow an author to distribute the full proof as soon as it's done.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06328185728688465505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-36301280909426111782009-02-25T10:17:00.000-05:002009-02-25T10:17:00.000-05:00If they don't have it, and then you spend sometime...<I>If they don't have it, and then you spend sometime trying to prove it yourself, you can publish it in your paper and simply state that the authors did not provide a proof of their theorem, so you are providing one here.</I><BR/><BR/>That's the way it ought to be. In practice it doesn't quite work that way. In particular it is very difficult to prove that a very incomplete proof is wrong if the few details given belong to an actual correct proof (for one, you cannot give counterexamples).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-63258326180755685902009-02-25T09:28:00.000-05:002009-02-25T09:28:00.000-05:00claims without proofs should expire in a few years...<I>claims without proofs should expire in a few years. </I><BR/><BR/>I first heard of this quite a few years ago at Dagstuhl. A group of researchers had "re-proven" a long standing claim for which no hint of the proof had appeared nearly ten years after first being claimed. Still, their result kept getting rejected because "it wasn't new". Eventually they had to engage in personal non-standard interactions with the PC chair and Editors to get the paper published.<BR/><BR/>The idea of proofs expiring in ten years was mentioned then as a bit of a lark, but those present (which included quite a few editors) quickly agreed and suggested no more than five years begiven to any non-trivial claim lacking public proof (e.g. arxiving the long version would secure your result). <BR/><BR/>Since papers are peer reviewed (that's us) all we need to do is start applying this rule when refereeing to make it a reality.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly math already operates in this mode, and quite seamlessly so. When it became clear that the full details of Grisha's proof of the Poincare conjecture where not forthcoming, the filling in of the gaps was immediately declared open and several groups published papers on this. <BR/><BR/>Since Grisha gave a more or less complete outline, the result is still considered his, but the people who filled in the details will get well deserved citations in reward for their housekeeping efforts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-31901747822573674632009-02-22T19:56:00.000-05:002009-02-22T19:56:00.000-05:00I don't have problems with having all proofs (or a...I don't have problems with having all proofs (or all "important" proofs) in the submission, but why is it then called an *extended abstract*?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-56511186724960261682009-02-20T21:36:00.000-05:002009-02-20T21:36:00.000-05:00So do you want the author to submit it without men...<I>So do you want the author to submit it without mentioning the extension? Hiding information is always bad.</I><BR/><BR/>Without a proof for all we know it might be false information, in which case hiding it would be preferable. Anyways, often times a proof <I>sketch</I> would suffice to convince someone the theorem statement is true -- an author could at least include that. If some proof sketches don't fit in the conference version, put details on arXiv.Jelani Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00216475103758212305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-27727467153594592162009-02-20T18:37:00.000-05:002009-02-20T18:37:00.000-05:00"Mikkel Thorup has proposed (quite seriously...) t..."Mikkel Thorup has proposed (quite seriously...) that claims without proofs should expire in a few years."<BR/><BR/>I don't understand this statement. Suppose someone proves a theorem and you see how to use this theorem in one of your results. You write to the author to ask for a full version of their paper with a proof of that theorem. If they don't have it, and then you spend sometime trying to prove it yourself, you can publish it in your paper and simply state that the authors did not provide a proof of their theorem, so you are providing one here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-79087432223539732312009-02-20T17:23:00.000-05:002009-02-20T17:23:00.000-05:00MiP Said:Mikkel Thorup has proposed (quite serious...MiP Said:<BR/>Mikkel Thorup has proposed (quite seriously...) that claims without proofs should expire in a few years. If you don't have a journal version in 3 years, it should be up for grabs and anybody should be able to publish a proof that you did not include.<BR/><BR/>I like this idea; it is good to give incentives for journalizing papers. <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, journals are sometimes quite slow, 3 years may not be enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-89561118382354225552009-02-20T15:27:00.000-05:002009-02-20T15:27:00.000-05:00Anon, if you read the last part of my post you wil...Anon, if you read the last part of my post you will understand exactly why I disapprove of double blind.<BR/><BR/>It's one thing not responding to email from China and India (I get many questions which are on average very silly), it's another to assume the PC will not carefully read the paper if they don't know the author. That is not true.Mihaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11599372864611039927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-40158433108596319302009-02-20T15:18:00.000-05:002009-02-20T15:18:00.000-05:00It's interesting that you admit that people in the...It's interesting that you admit that people in the US would likely take a long time or not respond at all to a question from someone in China, but you don't think that this same discrimination necessitates double blind reviewing.<BR/><BR/>We discriminate. Let's have anonymous submissions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-83023244987473177532009-02-20T14:17:00.000-05:002009-02-20T14:17:00.000-05:00Adam, I certainly agree that the 3rd extension can...Adam, I certainly agree that the 3rd extension can be interesting down the road. But you have to balance this with the interest of getting something out the door quickly. <BR/><BR/>The paper would probably be accepted without the 3rd extension. So do you want the author to submit it without mentioning the extension? Hiding information is always bad. He's pointing out something interesting that can be done, and potentially saving a young graduate student some effort.<BR/><BR/>But the problem that you mention is real, of course. Mikkel Thorup has proposed (quite seriously...) that claims without proofs should expire in a few years. If you don't have a journal version in 3 years, it should be up for grabs and anybody should be able to publish a proof that you did not include.Mihaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11599372864611039927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-48516261152512881502009-02-20T14:04:00.000-05:002009-02-20T14:04:00.000-05:00I like the full proofs requirement.I'm not so sure...I like the full proofs requirement.<BR/><BR/>I'm not so sure about the "central claims" qualification. First, there is the obvious issue of who decides which claims are central. I assume that the rule will be, roughly, that if a reviewer wanted to verify something and no proof was provided, then you have broken the rule, and confidence in your submission's correctness will go down. <BR/><BR/>What actually bothers me more is that often the "3rd extensions" are exactly what is interesting some years later, in follow-up work. If you make a vague claim and provide no proof, then no one can ever publish a paper on the topic, unless they prove you wrong. So the claim goes on existing forever with no real verification. <BR/><BR/>So I would prefer to see more precise language in the call for papers; roughly: every explicit proposition, lemma, claim theorem should be accompanied by a proof (unless it is simple enough that it can be verified easily-- not just believed-- by a reader on their own).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-63544156912257005332009-02-20T02:16:00.000-05:002009-02-20T02:16:00.000-05:00What the CFP asks for in this 2-page bit is what a...What the CFP asks for in this 2-page bit is what almost everyone seemed to know 15-20 years ago should be the introduction when they submitted their papers: A successful conference submission should be written differently from a final paper: The first two pages should be an introduction that makes your case for the paper (and explains what you did) because there is no guarantee that anyone will have time to read beyond them. Typically, final versions should have toned down introductions.<BR/><BR/>Some of the constraints that fostered this have gone by the wayside: The pile of printed papers used to arrive in a box so it was much more difficult to farm them out to sub-reviewers around the world. This meant that reviewers without multiple nearby colleagues did a lot of reading completely on their own. Nowadays, asking sub-reviewers is easy, and authors, who are getting detailed reviews and may not realize the importance of their intros, seem much more sure that their full ten pages will actually be read by someone. It is possible that they don't even realize the value of it. <BR/><BR/>Another reason for the change is that there was definitely a backlash against egregious over-selling in the introductions of some papers. This meant that hype is a little out of style.<BR/><BR/>At some level the requirement is simply "write a decent intro". I personally am not a big fan of the requirement but being after the full submission I don't think it is likely to be too detrimental to try it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-81198743948822647752009-02-20T01:45:00.000-05:002009-02-20T01:45:00.000-05:00I'm not sure whether the post-submission summary i...I'm not sure whether the post-submission summary is supposed to be more like an edited-to-size copy of the introduction or more like one of the blog posts that the more shamelessly self-promotional of us write about our own papers, but either way I don't see the point. If you haven't already said the same things clearly enough in your real introduction, why should you be given a second chance?<BR/><BR/>I do like the requirement for complete proofs of main results, though. Along with what you write about this part (which I agree with) these also have the advantage of forcing the author to write out the full version ahead of time, making it a little more likely that they'll submit it for an archival journal version afterwards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com