[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 177 KB, 1313x1323, ss.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10315927 No.10315927 [Reply] [Original]

Is it possible for a mathematician to do research in a field so abstract, that they could create non-sensible papers that get published in prestigious journals? I'm talking something very abstract, where no one else in the world understands it and the few that attempt to understand just nod their head in agreement because the person doing it is known for being a leader in that math circle. Pic not related.

>> No.10315935

>>10315927
No.

>> No.10315958

If we talk applied mathematics, I know it to have happened in at least one journal at the very top. The editor was a co-author and the paper got accepted after a total review time of one day.

More interestingly, could you publish gobbledegook if I reviewed your paper? Possibly, as I check if your steps seems to make sense and if they are complete enough to be verifiable. I will then suggest acceptance, as the evidence of your work is based on others adopting your theories, not on the publication itself.

>> No.10315998

>>10315935
Wrong. Various instances where papers published with errors undetected in pure math

>> No.10316004

>>10315998
Errors, not gibberish.

>> No.10316011
File: 352 KB, 480x486, 1514070984949.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10316011

>>10315927
Yes, and this guy has made his living from doing this.

>> No.10316026

>>10315927

Mochiuzuki Interuniversal Techmüller Something something

>> No.10316119

>>10315927
But then usual it would published in journal of philosophy not mathematics

>> No.10316280

>>10315927

Not impossible but very difficult. You would have to be at the very top of the game to get away with this in Math, as the language and terminology are by an order of magnitude more precise than the next field down, physics. So basically you would have to invent all sorts of new terms and relationships which only you can define. If asked to define those you could then offer an explanation so indecipherable as to provide no practical explanation. At this point you would be virtually intimidating anyone who attempts to question you.

Many of us get away with a lot of gobbledygook through out school and University. I remember inserting deliberately wrong statements and data errors into papers just to find out who was paying attention. Knowing when and where you can do this is like a skill in its self, which over time and with experience you can only improve upon. You can quickly figure out what faculty members are just lazy or even just plain incompetent and take advantage of this to save yourself a lot of work.

I am sure many bullshitters go on to reach academic positions where they can just carry on producing nonsense with zero fucks given. Get called out? Just defend it with the same sort of bullshit. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain at that point. Surprisingly there is often not much people can do, even if within their circle its obvious that you are a fraud and full of shit. You just ad hominem them, insult their intelligence and carry on. Seen that done successfully far too many times. They will snub you in the hallways, but who gives a fuck while the pay checks keep rolling in and halfwits will still rush to defend you?

>> No.10316302

>>10315927
Dimensional Topology. The higher the geometry dimension compressed under axioms established, the more abstract.

>> No.10316342

>>10315927

I think that is highly unlikely to happen. People will actually read anything that gets published eventually, and it would just be stupid for people with PhDs to waste their time on gibberish.

Sometimes they can have honest errors but even this is rare.

>>10316026

This is a perfect example. You don't even understand IUT, yet you still choose to shit on it.

>> No.10316401

>>10316302
I wonder if this can be applied to higher levels of category theory. As an outsider a lot of papers are filled with weird symbols, and seemingly impenetrable structures that look to make no sense. It makes one wonder if it is actually made up and is gibberish

>> No.10316419

>>10316401

You could certainly try to bluff your way through upping the abstract stakes, but you risk that one autistic nerd chasing your tail. Unless you have something fairly major to gain and are prepared for a vicious nerd war, what is the point?

>> No.10316507

>>10315927
This is basically what modern math and physics papers are already.

>> No.10316547

>>10316507
well, you clearly have not read any paper

>> No.10316552

>>10316342

It happens but rarely does it come to light outside limited academic circles.

At the end of the day most papers published are trivial. The sheer volume of inconsequential "detail" that is pumped out is unbelievable. For decades now it has served as an arms race for padding one's credentials for career prospects, rather than adding anything worthwhile to the scientific community.

The overwhelming vast majority of what is published is just junk. Meaningless waffle. Scientifically accurate, yes, sure, but of no value.

So what does it matter if some contrived bullshit, or some plainly incompetent bullshit, is added to the dump? Nothing really. If there are some new ideas comparable to the theory of evolution or relativity hidden under thousands of pages of garbage then it matters little if its all hidden underneath an extra few pages of outright fabrications. In the end its just hidden.

>> No.10316555

>>10316342
mochizuki pls go

>> No.10316591

>>10316011
Liv Tyler really hit the wall didn't she.

>> No.10316661

>>10316547
au contraire

My jaded perspective comes from finding nothing of value in reams of bad papers. It's how academic publishing works now, I guess, but that doesn't mean I have to respect garbage. It's all too common to see muddled esoteric voodoo that goes unexplained and to nowhere because the author assumes your familiarity with things they should really just explain in the text, or is probably just made up crap with no deeper justification or meaning.

>> No.10317786

>>10316661

Its not so surprising when you consider the volume of educated retards the University systems pump out nowadays. Most degrees attained these days amount to little more than technician qualifications compared to the standards of half a century ago. 50 years ago technicians didn't write "papers" but here we are today and they are churning them out faster than you can say "Pad my CV".

There is such a plethora of meaningless crap, there really needs to be a screening process to sort the wheat from the chaff. Literally 99% of what passes today has no merit other than saying "Look, I can obfuscate simple ideas to make them appear incomprehensible to anyone else outside my immediate field". What these fucks dont seem to grasp is that anyone can obfuscate virtually any topic. You could make baking a fucking chocolate cake appear as technically difficult to understand as quantum physics.

>> No.10318722

>>10316555
>mochizuki pls go
no u

>> No.10319179

>>10315927
No, it's literally never been done.