Pre-publishing maths on Arxiv: good idea?

October 25, 2017 5:53 PM

I'm an amateur mathematician without any academic affiliation and I have solved part of a long-standing question. I want to discuss my proof on mailing lists and email, which might help me get the insights to solve the other part. Will putting an obfuscated proof on Arxiv secure my priority while I work on a bigger, fuller analysis? Is it a good idea generally, presuming that I would publish it properly at some stage?

I am very confident the proof is correct, because it lets me answer related conjectures and easily generate numeric examples of cases that are otherwise calculated exhaustively. I'm not so much scared of people "stealing" the proof, but the key insight is so simple that it would be hard for them to avoid revealing it while discussing the subject with others. The obfuscation would consist of publishing a proof for a different formulation of the problem that appears in a classic paper on the subject, but I would avoid using the key words that would normally be in the title or linking to papers that use those words. E.g., if it was a solution for Goldbach's conjecture (I wish!) I would title it something like "A factorization problem involving partitions of even numbers".

posted by ICanHazQuestion to Education (7 answers total)

Best answer: Not a professional mathematician, but I do think posting to arXiv would establish priority. At the same time, it's not clear to me why you'd want to obfuscate the post, and I think many mathematicians would regard it as strange. It could be read as a joke, or like you don't know the importance of what you've done. Are you afraid of someone else solving the other part of the problem more quickly than you do, given your work to this point? Even so, they'd have to credit you (presuming you established priority, via arXiv or whatever else), so it seems to me like your contribution is still acknowledged.
posted by acroyear2 at 6:49 PM on October 25, 2017 [1 favorite]

Best answer: When you say you've solved part of it, what exactly does that mean? If the key insight is simple I'd be suspicious that either (1) your proof is wrong or (2) someone else has thought of this already or (3) your "part" is of little consequence to the whole (in other words, other mathematicians would/already have come across it in the course of attacking the larger problem anyhow, it's just that your part is not the main thrust so nobody's publishing about it). If you're confident that it's none of those things, then it seems to me that the fact that this problem is long-standing indicates the likelihood of someone else coming along at precisely this point in history to beat you to the punch is rather low.

I agree obfuscation is probably not a great idea. First of all, mathematicians are the exactly worst people to attempt obfuscation with, because they're basically trained to see through it. Second, done badly it may cause people to avoid your publication -- e.g., it occurs to me immediately, a person with a BSc in math but who is not a mathematician, that 'A factorization problem [...] even numbers' is ridiculous. It's either written by an amateur or it's some kind of joke, and either way I'm likely to skip it. I realize you are an amateur, but I think if you want to be taken seriously you should try to comport yourself as if you're not. It behooves you to make your ideas as straightforward and easy to engage with as possible.

Last thought, may want to look into posting on math overflow. I think a lot of mathematicians hang out there, and they tend to be willing to engage with amateur's questions.
posted by axiom at 7:17 PM on October 25, 2017 [2 favorites]

Best answer: What you describe is not obfuscation. It's solving problem B, and not spelling out the connection to problem A. That doesn't establish priority over a solution to problem A.

If your approach turns out to be able to solve problem A, but you don't complete and publish the deeper work, people will say you were on the right lines with your solution to problem B, but you didn't realize it, and you weren't able to make a connection to the more general, fundamental set of problems.

More generally: I used to work in academic publishing, and I used to be an astrophysicist. You're making the mistake many amateurs make, which is believing the danger to your work is other people knowing about it. The true danger is other people not knowing about it. Telling people about your work and your progress will make your work better and make you finish faster. Share what you have if your stuck. Otherwise finish it and then publish.
posted by caek at 7:18 PM on October 25, 2017 [21 favorites]

Best answer: Publishing to the Arxiv establishes a citable, academically-valid claim on the contents of the manuscript. This is particularly true in mathematics and theoretical physics, where the interested reader typically has the know-how to verify the results themselves. It doesn't give you any priority on future work on the subject, but it does put your work out in the community of mathematician. If anyone else uses the contents subsequently they are ethically bound to cite you. Citations are one of the most important bits of prestige in academic circles — your ideas influenced the thinking of others! — and this would be a great outcome.

I don't see any advantage to obfuscation. As those above have said, obfuscation will just mean that you don't get the credit for making all the links you've made. If you want to host a copy of your proof to talk about with people privately, then put it up on your own website or take it up on math overflow. If you want to engage with a community of mathematicians as a peer, then engage with them openly and be pleased if your work is of enough interest for others to base their own work on. For better or worse, you're already going to be fighting an uphill battle for attention as an amateur researcher. Anything you do to appear overly defensive or against the norms of the community is only going to make people dismiss your work and, to be honest, disrespects the time and attention of those you most want input from.
posted by Schismatic at 9:07 PM on October 25, 2017

Best answer: I am a professional mathematician, and I'd recommend that you post your article on arXiv. It's pretty unlikely that anyone is going to steal your idea. It's possible that someone will see your article, think about a way to improve your result, and send you a note about their idea.

It's most likely, though, that your proof is incorrect. If you're looking at a long-standing open problem, you can be assured that lots of other very clever people have also looked at the same problem. If there was an easy way to solve it, someone would have already found it by now. The chances that you're the one and only person to find the one simple trick are pretty slim.

(You can google "amateur mathematician solving problem" to see this point repeated many times.)

So. I'd say your best bet is to first post the article to arXiv, on the (very slim) chance you've got something new. Then, post a question to either mathoverflow or math stackexchange, saying something like, "Why can't we use Method A to solve Problem B?" and someone will respond with, "Ah yes, this is a common mistake because of Issue C", and then someone else will say, "If you're interested in this problem, you should really read Book D", and hopefully that will inspire you to continue your work.

Because I don't want to discourage you! Playing around with math is fun, and it's possible for amateurs to come up with results. But getting results is very, very incremental, and with lots of little steps and little proofs along the way. Good luck!
posted by math at 9:12 PM on October 25, 2017 [3 favorites]

Response by poster: Thanks for all the good advice.

Yes, I know that this is unlikely, and that amateur mathematicians are notorious for this sort of thing. I've been stewing over this for months and only decided to go ahead because I can directly calculate the values of a distribution that papers in the field describe as random. I might be wrong about the implications, but I can't be wrong about the results.
posted by ICanHazQuestion at 10:55 PM on October 25, 2017 [1 favorite]

Best answer: More as a logician than as a mathematician, and without any inkling of what the problem is, I'd note that both math and ICanHaz may be right if ICan's solution is useful but less general than he thinks.

I did have the experience of solving a problem in operations research and shortly thereafter learning that a well-known guy in the field had recently published a very similar result. It involved a simplification that was not immediately obvious, at least to me, but by no means deep. It was not a famous problem, and in fact, maybe no one else even thought to try to solve it. There are ideas that only seem simple in hindsight.
posted by SemiSalt at 6:33 AM on October 26, 2017