Stabilizer comments on Rationality Quotes April 2013 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Vaniver 08 April 2013 02:00AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (281)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Stabilizer 01 April 2013 07:19:22PM 33 points [-]

More specifically, one thing I learned from Terry that I was not taught in school is the importance of bad proofs. I would say "I think this is true", work on it, see that there was no nice proof, and give up. Terry would say "Here's a criterion that eliminates most of the problem. Then in what's left, here's a worse one that handles most of the detritus. One or two more epicycles. At that point it comes down to fourteen cases, and I checked them." Yuck. But we would know it was true, and we would move on. (Usually these would get cleaned up a fair bit before publication.)

-Allen Knutson on collaborating with Terence Tao

Comment author: kpreid 02 April 2013 04:00:22PM 4 points [-]

(meta)

Saith the linked site: “You must sign in to read answers past the first one.”

Well, that's obnoxious.

Comment author: Stabilizer 02 April 2013 10:30:14PM *  3 points [-]

If it's any consolation, none of the answers past the first one on this question are very good.

Comment author: somervta 03 April 2013 10:41:58AM 1 point [-]

Well, there are only 2

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 April 2013 04:21:42AM 6 points [-]

At that point I'd start wondering why there doesn't appear to be a simple proof. For example, maybe some kind of generalization of the result is false and you need the complexity to "break the correspondence" with the generalization.

Comment author: somervta 03 April 2013 10:42:26AM 2 points [-]

Or else I would say "I wonder if this is true" and Terry would say "Oh, it is for a while, but it starts to fail in six dimensions" where I hadn't hardly exhausted the 3-dim

-Same place