/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous !FAzSTjk90I No.4522999]

The time has come /sci/.

ITT: we take the necessary measures to publish a scientific paper.

Lead author: "Anon"
=======================

This is the brainstorming phase.

[Anonymous No.4523003]

I will solve RH and post it on arxiv as anon.

[Anonymous No.4523005]

Whats the topic?

[Anonymous No.4523010]

OP is a faggot

A mathematical analysis

by Anonymous

[Anonymous No.4523012]

>>4523005
didn't read?
>>brainstorming phase

[Anonymous No.4523013]

>>4523010

The axioms of OP are:

1.) OP is a homosexual
2.) OP enjoys sex

Definition: A faggot is someone who enjoys sex with men.

OP enjoys sex, and he is homosexual. Since he is homosexual, he enjoys men sexually. Therefore OP is a faggot.

QED

[Anonymous No.4523016]

I vote that the topic be physics. In particular, theoretical particle physics.

[Anonymous No.4523020]

A statistical paper studying if the majority of OP's on 4chan are faggots.

[Anonymous No.4523023]

i think atheism v religion

[Anonymous No.4523029]

We need to find a way to objectively measure the homosexuality coefficient of someone.

[Anonymous No.4523032]

>>4523029
>biology
costanza.jpg

[Anonymous No.4523033]

>>4523032
>implying that's not engineering

[Anonymous No.4523035]

>>4523013
>begging the question

[Anonymous No.4523058]

>>4523029
I don't know how to measure it, but the unit is homohms.

[Anonymous No.4523059]

Anything theoretical might be too difficult for the level of education of most people here.

Perhaps some experimental topic?

[Anonymous No.4523061]

we take a random lie algebra and use it to create a gauge theory and then explore its properties. we already have U(1), SU(2)XU(1) and U(3). so lets take U(4), or maybe something else like O(3) and then show that O(3) electrodynamics is wrong. this can also be distributed in a very nice way, one person proves its Lorentz inverient, one derives other conservation laws, one does something else.

[Anonymous No.4523081]

>>4523061
I like it! Sounds very doable to me.
Or am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.4523092]

>>4523081
>>4523081
depends on the physics/math level of the people. for practice we could derive electrodynamics from U(1) to see if people can do it.

[Anonymous No.4523104]

40 citations, of which only 10 are actually relevant, 20 are more "look how many citations I can make!", and the last 10 are just shout-outs

[Anonymous No.4523109]

>>4523061
Looks like they already did O(3)

>>4523092
I'm sure some people can, the question is whether they'll see this and be willing.

[Anonymous No.4523122]

>>4523109
sorry forgot the link to the O(3) paper
http://www.upitec.org/Content/O3ElectrodynamicFromEinsteinGroup.pdf

[Anonymous No.4523144]

>>4523122
>T. E. Bearden
>M. W. Evans
fuck no. those people don't know what the hell they are doing. (they didn't even study physics and they think their O(3) electrodynamics can be used to create free energy devises but the "mainstream" physics is keeping it down)
im talking about a real O(3) theory.

[Anonymous No.4523161]

>>4523013
i lol'ed, even thought it was dumb

[Anonymous No.4523164]

>>4523144
oh alright. I didn't actually read any of it. Just clicked the first link on google.

[Anonymous No.4523172]

I really really like this

[Anonymous No.4523212]

What does O(3) mean?

[Anonymous No.4523290]

>>4522999
My two cents:

Whatever we're going to do, it has to be relatively accessable to all. Only physists can write a paper on physics, only mathematicians can write a paper on maths, but both (and CS) can write papers on CS.
I'm not even saying that it's an easier subject, but there's just so much less total research invested in the field as a whole.

Furthermore, I think we need to do something relatively laborous, rather than trying to find some deep insight.
I'll give an example:
We download statistical user data from existing websites, develop a simple tool for analysis. We try to formulate a behavioral model of the user-base.
We'll need basic insight in game-theory, statistics, and programming, but not all by the same person. Furthermore, we need to do common-sense thinking, which is the right level for here.

We is agree?

[Anonymous No.4523318]

start the google document!!!

[Anonymous No.4523352]

Quantify the gayness of this guy using Homohm units

[Anonymous No.4523487]

So far we have two great ideas:
>>4523061
and
>>4523290

I'd like to hear what people are more in favor of.
Or other ideas as well.

[Anonymous No.4523491]

>>4523212
ordinary orthogonal group over <span class="math">\mathbb{R}^3[/spoiler]

I think

I can't into group theory

[Anonymous No.4523495]

>>4523352
i fucking hate CJ

smug slick haired twat

[Anonymous No.4523500]

>>4523061
>lie algebra
you mean lie group?

[Anonymous No.4523644]

>>4523487
So far it seems more people are interested the studying the properties of a gauge theory from some lie group.

But The other idea is probably more realistic.

[Anonymous No.4523650]

>>4523290
Proposal: We come up with an interdisciplinary research project that can incorporate larger variety of talented sciducks and is also less likely to have existing research.

In other words:

>PHYSICS!
>MATH!
>CHEM!
>BIO!
>CS!
>BY YOUR POWERS COMBINED I AM A KICKASS RESEARCH PAPER!

[Anonymous No.4523665]

>>4523650
Is the research paper a spandex wearing superhero? Because I'll get on board if we really do get to summon Captain Research.

[Anonymous No.4523685]

>>4523491

So basically the fundamental forces would result from different rotations in hyperspace?

[Anonymous No.4523713]

>>4523650
>biology
>a hard science
>CS
>for people who are too stupid to do real math
>physics
>enjoy working at starbucks
>chem
>a hobby for physicists
>math
>extreme aspergers

[Anonymous No.4523715]

Either the idea above (About combining a ton of subjects) or running a sociological study (about boards on 4chan and internet culture) are about the only bets. The second, to be honest, would actually get published hands down. People in social sciences eat shit about the internet all day (cyber-warfare, cyber-terrorism, cyber-bullying CYBER).

[Anonymous No.4523735]

>>4523715
one day green text will become a scripting language

[Anonymous No.4523738]

>>4523500
a lie group has a corresponding lie algebra.

[Anonymous No.4523745]

>>4523738
Yes, but everything mentioned was a lie group. It just seems weird to talk about one and give examples of the other.

[Anonymous No.4523757]

>>4523685
almost, if you have some field (im going to use the Dirac field in my example) you can get the forse by having the field be symetric under some rotation/transformation in some space. so take the electron (or any lepton described by the Dirac field) and you say it has U(1) symmetry, then you find that you have to add an extra term to the Dirac field and that term is exactly the force an electron feels due to electromagnetism. the electrodynamic field comes out of the equation then as a gauge field. note that the symmetry has to be a local symmetry, so at each point in space you twist the the electron field by some (differentiable functions) value in this gauge dimension, and no matter how you twist it it should be the same field due to the symmetry of this rotation. the same is true for electroewaek and strong interaction (SU(2) X U(1) and SU(3))

[Anonymous No.4523763]

>>4523745
as far as i know physicists use the 2 terms interchangeably only drawing a distinction between the 2 when they start doing the math.

[Anonymous No.4523775]

The socio-dynamics of an inherently anonymous group.

Conclusion: people + anonimity = honest assholes

[Anonymous No.4523808]

any more before we choose one?

[Anonymous No.4523823]

>>4523808
well so far we really only have 2 actual ideas.

Everything else is like "let's do it in THIS field, or combine these fields", but aren't actual topics of research, just areas to do them in.

[Anonymous No.4523839]

>>4523650
does such a topic even exist?

[Anonymous No.4523844]

>>4523839
scratch that.

3 ideas, forgot this one
>>4523715

[Anonymous No.4523845]

>>4523839
computational biophysics

using category theory

[Anonymous No.4523871]

>>4523845
interesting. Can you propose a specific topic, or do I have to go try and read up on it and piece something together.

[Anonymous No.4524013]

Look guys I'm serious, all we need to do is write about internet culture.

http://www.amazon.com/Epic-Win-Anonymous-4chan-Conquered/dp/1590207106

Seriously look at this absolute bullshit. Why don't we get together, make tons of books like this and split profits between those of us involved?

[Anonymous No.4524027]

>>4523871
the last part was nonsense. but yes, computational biophysics is a real field with many people working in it

http://www.biomaps.rutgers.edu/index.php

[Anonymous No.4524034]

>>4524013
moot was trying to translate something on 4chan into urban planning (see TED talk). go consult with him.

[Anonymous No.4524135]

>>4524034

I don't think he's going to recruit a random person from the internet to help him.

[Anonymous No.4524553]

>>4523715
>>4523290
Bumpity.
We need to combine these two good ideas.
It's obvious that if we commit to >>4523715
we can publish at a mediocre social science conference. However, I think in order to get /sci/ warmed up for it, we need to do actual math and actual science, as suggested in >>4523290.
So with their powers combined, we can try to capture a behavioral model of /b/ users. Why /b/? Because they have these intra-thread identifiers. We can try to find a methodology to recognize, looking only at writing style, which posters are likely the same, whether they have related ideas, etc. And here comes the interesting part: we can see wether it's theoretically possible to use this information to break the privacy of /b/-tards, by creating some sort of user-profiles based on writing styles, periods of activity, etc. to identify frequent posters as being the same in several threads.
This will involve statistics, graph-theory, machine learning, markov models, and perhaps some domain knowledge within linguistics.

[Anonymous No.4524581]

>>4524553
That would be very interesting. Wish I was better at stats so I could contribute more. (I'm a biologist, and my math skills are limited to plugging numbers into Stata).

[Anonymous No.4524595]

>>4524553
This sounds very interesting.
Recently /b/ introduced force ID, it expires after every 24 hours (or so I think).
We can test our algo to identify /b/tards from each day into the next.

>> pic related, just installed this.

[Anonymous No.4524608]

>>4524595
That was the thing I was referring to. I thought it was per thread. I never go there though, so I might be wrong.

[Anonymous No.4524621]

>>4524608
This is even better as we get a larger sample set for our machine leaning algo.

Lest break this into milestones.

1) we need a /b/ logger.
log some of the the tripfags who show up daily and gather some data to analyse language patterns.

2) meanwhile read up on natural language processing and machine learning. (lit survey)

3) basic algo (something simple like LMS) in PASCAL/Matlab

4) testing on the data set./optimization of algo.
someone should sticky this thread

[Anonymous No.4524625]

I have a better idea

Lets try to submit one of these to physical review:
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

[Anonymous No.4524629]

>>4524625

[Anonymous No.4524638]

>>4524629
>those authors

[Anonymous No.4524648]

>>4524629
>Josef will never come back to /sci/

[Anonymous No.4524650]

>>4524625
What the fuck is this?

[Anonymous No.4524654]

>>4524650
>SCIgen is a program that generates random Computer Science research papers, including graphs, figures, and citations. It uses a hand-written context-free grammar to form all elements of the papers. Our aim here is to maximize amusement, rather than coherence.

[Anonymous No.4524704]

Anon et al. (2012). "Inducible changes in idea heirarchy on a science website".

Journal of Faggotronomy, 382838, pp 3232 - 3233

Abstract: "An imageboard dominated by pure maths and pure physics faggots was invaded by hundreds of people with practical scientific skills, such as medical scientists, engineers and agricultural scientists, in an attempt to flush out the faggotry. After 10 days of the experiment the image board changed from deluded ramblings of mad-men to logical and friendly scientific discussion with a practical use. Once the experiment ended the imageboard reverted back to faggotry".

Author for correspondance: Moot.

[Anonymous No.4525209]

>>4524648
>>4524648
Who is Josef? I am just curious.

>inb4 newfag

[Anonymous No.4525238]

>>4525209
person who gave helpful answers to anyone with mathematical questions.

helped thousands of anons and never devolved into an attention whore

[Anonymous No.4525251]

Rick,

What are you doing? What is this?

~Your Roommate

[Anonymous No.4525269]

Testing 1 2 3

[Anonymous No.4525294]

In phase 3 clinical studies, various researchers
discovered the correlation between OP and severe faggotry. The underlying causes of this were not realized until Anon made the groundbreaking connection between OP and general homosexuality. The physiological aspect of this theory has yet to be understood. (Anon)

[Anonymous No.4525308]

1) Have a PI with a recognizable name
2) be capable of passably copying the formatting and structure of other papers
3) have at least 5-6 "good" looking graphs developed from your data
4) if its "bio-shit" then make sure you have cartoons
5) keep all your shitty results in the secondary materials section
6) lie as much as possible and pray to god that your paper does not get very much attention.

[Anonymous No.4525557]

yes

[Anonymous No.4525562]

[Anonymous No.4526191]

>>4524621
Yeah, but we need to correct for the fact that namefags tend to not be a random subset of the general public.
I was thinking about using namefags as a control group. That is, if we can get our system to recognize the likelihood of two posts sharing the same author, then we can check using namefags.

[Anonymous No.4526196]

Also, can we make this sticky for a short while, and see how many people are interested, how much time they are willing to invest, what field they specialize in, and at what level.
If it's going to be written by anonymous, there need to be a number of people with different expertise, all doing a small part.

PhD student in CS here, mostly formal/theoretical. Willing to put in a couple of hours per week, for several weeks.

[Anonymous No.4526209]

>>4526196
No, If we sticky this the subjects might find out and potently change the outcome.

[Anonymous No.4526212]

A psychoanalysis of why there are homosexual men who practice in excessively flamboyant behaviour (possibly needless) while there are other homosexual who act 'normal'.

[Anonymous No.4526213]

>>4526209
/b/ users only care about getting doubles and raffing being equal to ruzing.
Even if dozens of /b/-tards find out that /sci/ wants to study them, noone will listen. Unless it's phrased as raid, of course.

[Anonymous No.4526360]

So we got plenty of ideas yesterday.

Today we make a final decision.

Personally I think if is going to be authored by "Anonymous" it might need to be something that doesn't require credibility.
Like in math/physics they can tell that the paper is well done and logical just based on its content.

If it is more involved in social science, credibility means a LOT and they aren't going to trust a paper written by Anon.

So I personally vote for something that is more technical/mathematical.


Here is what we have so far:

1)
>>4523061
Use a lie group such as U(4) or O(3) and explore its properties, in particular we would expect to show that electrodynamics is wrong within this gauge theory.

2)
>>4523290
Develop a tool for analyzing statistical user data from existing websites, and formulate a behavioral model of their user-base.

3)
>>4523715
A sociological study on internet culture (suggested boards like 4chan).

4)
>>4524553
Combine 2) and 3) to make a behavioral model of 4chan users (/b/ users in particular for the reasons listed in the post). Methods to identify which users are the 'samefag' are discussed, and from this knowledge we would be able to formulate a behavioral model of the users.


I'll start off the voting. I pick #1. I would like to at least give it a shot, if it fails I wouldn't mind trying something different.
My reasons are because a paper on that topic will be true for all time. and I can't pass up the opportunity to have something like that be known under the name "Anonymous", how cool would that be

BEGIN THE VOTING

[Anonymous No.4526657]

BEGIN VOTING ALL WELCOME

read this first
>>4526360

[Anonymous No.4526725]

i like 1, but don't think a lot of people will be able to contribute,

[Anonymous No.4526754]

>>4526360
You will not be published under anonymous. Even arxiv deletes papers if people use pseudonyms.

[Anonymous No.4526772]

>>4526360
#4 is the most interesting to me, but #1 is the most worth doing.

[Anonymous No.4526806]

How the 4chan anons created an internet culture that spread through the internet reaching different countries in a few years.

And why we started hating our own creation.

[Anonymous No.4526810]

>>4526754
One of the things I'd like to see /sci/ do is put together its own version of the QED Project (formalizing mathematics).

The QED Manifesto:
http://www.cs.ru.nl/~freek/qed/qed.html

I think it fits in well with the philosophy of anonymity; it pushes toward a world in which your credibility as a person doesn't matter, only whether your ideas work.

The goal would be not publication, but building a collaborative website on which anyone could post a formal proof as long as it checked.

[Anonymous No.4527180]

>>4526360
I'm the guy who put forward #2 and #4 from that list. When I read #3, I realised that #2 could be improved by adding some elements from #2.
Therefore, I vote #4.

[Anonymous No.4527881]

Here are the votes so far from this list of options
>>4526360

#1 - 2.5 votes
#2 - 0 votes
#3 - 0 votes
#4 - 2.5 votes
If you're wondering about the .5 it's from this guy:
>>4526772

I couldn't just decide which one he would want more, and I didn't want to throw the vote out since we have so few lol.


We need more votes, please read
>>4526360
and vote on one of the topics.

[Anonymous No.4527893]

4 is the best option. You think someone in academia isn't already working on that? I don't think /sci/ is up to the challenge, and given that no one else dares to touch internet statistics on boards like 4chan since they're shitholes, and since everyone on 4chan can do research about it, it's much more plausible.

[Anonymous No.4527894]

>>4527893

My negative comments refer to 1 by the way.

[Anonymous No.4527895]

Does... does this that mean all the time I spent browsing 4chan (instead of studying data mining and machine learning) will turn out to be productive?

wait a minute...

[mathfag !lBA0pEMs2M No.4527898]

How serious are you guys about this? Are you honestly balls-to-the wall, dead fucking serious, and will you care a month from now? If you're going to be balls-to-the-wall dead fucking serious, then I feel like 4 might be more accessible to more people; I think identifying samefaggotry might both require a large sample size and some solid AI on /b/, and require some good ideas which needn't come from people who have a strong grounding in AI.

[Anonymous No.4527899]

>>4527898

I'm in as soon as my exams are done in a month.

[Anonymous No.4527906]

#1 sounds good.
The analysis of internet college just seems so...basic. Don't do that.

[Anonymous No.4527907]

I vote for #1.

[Anonymous No.4527908]

>>4527906
Yeah I don't know why I said "college" ... I meant culture. Fuck me now all my friends will think I'm a dweeb.

[Anonymous No.4527910]

>>4526806
That's actually a great tangent on #4, except it'd be odd to write a paper about it. I think sending that over to /lit/ (if they didn't all have a nasty case of the downs) would be better...

[Anonymous No.4527933]

>>4527898
Well my seriousness would depend on how sure we can be that we would actually get published under the name "Anonymous"

In this world ruled by identity, due to things like facebook, where people fear the unknown
I really like the idea of showing the world that nice things can sometimes come from an anonymous group without any sort of personal gain or malicious intent.

That's why I think #1 would just be so epic to publish. But #4 is a close second.

Someone said we could never get into arxiv under the name "Anonymous"...
Guys think that's true?

[Anonymous No.4527956]

1. You don't want to have touched nasty sociology/psychology pseudoscience, do you? Of course not.

[Anonymous No.4528047]

#1 - 5.5 votes
#2 - 0 votes
#3 - 0 votes
#4 - 4.5 votes

Still time to get your vote in!
read this:
>>4526360

[Anonymous No.4528588]

>>4527898
Well said.
I agree also with >>4527893 that #1 might be too hard for /sci/ as a collective (even if individuals on /sci/ can do it, that's not the same as anonymous doing it). I'm furthermore afraid that some people vote #1, because they would like others to write such a paper.

[Anonymous No.4528594]

Attempting to use Lie groups to overhaul existing theories... This hasn't been done a million times by a million mathematician, wanna-be physicists.

I vote 1

[Anonymous No.4528598]

>not biology
>cannot into /sci/ paper :(
Wtf @ crowdsourcing science research, though.

[Anonymous No.4528599]

>>4526360
Count me in.

I vote 1 too btw.

[Anonymous No.4528620]

>mfw no knowledge of group theory and/or abstract algebra :(

[Anonymous No.4528628]

Let's solve a Millennium Problem

I get half the prize money though because it's my idea

[Anonymous No.4528663]

On getting published with a pseudonym: it is standard practise for papers to be published with the author given only as the name of the group that carried out the research. But these groups are always connected to official institutions and identifiable individuals can be contacted. Whether you could convince a paper with truly anonymous authors is questionable, unless a selection of individuals were willing to be identified as "spokespeople" or something of the sort.

I vote for #4 btw, only because I don't think #1 is feasible. Not that I think anybody wanting to take on #1 should hold fast their ambitions.

[Anonymous No.4528691]

>>4528663
I think we should be to publish as anonymous, provided the content is publishable. However, not everywhere will the allow us to do it, and where they perhaps might accept us, we probably still need to argue with several people that we are serious.

[Anonymous No.4528728]

DO ALL THE THINGS!!!

[Anonymous No.4528737]

>>4528728
get out now.

[Anonymous No.4528744]

I vote for #4.

It seems most plausible to get published.

[Anonymous No.4529605]

new thread.
>>4529219

[Anonymous No.4530700]

>>4529605
Why did you make a new thread? The bump limit isn't reached yet.

[Anonymous No.4530832]

>>4530700
idk...
My bad.
Thought since it was actually going to start it should have a new thread, but you're probably right.
We can use this one, I don't care.