You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

peaigr comments on Open Thread, October 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: David_Gerard 01 October 2012 05:54AM

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

Comments (477)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 October 2012 10:28:39PM 0 points [-]

Quantum proofs of classical theorems is a review article about how ideas and techniques from quantum information and computing have been used for proofs in classical computer science. I thought it was pretty fun. Are reviews of "proof techniques" common in math/CS theory? Are they actually useful for researchers or for students in those fields? I really like the idea; even well-developed techniques aren't the kinds of things textbooks emphasize. (At least the textbooks I read tend to focus more on the "content" of theorems and so on--maybe I just haven't gone far enough beyond foundational stuff.)

I guess I'm on a bit of a "how mathematics is done" kick lately (my comment below is also on that theme). If anyone has recommendations of the same flavor, I'd be interested.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 October 2012 10:52:14PM *  2 points [-]

Are reviews of "proof techniques" common in math/CS theory? Are they actually useful for researchers or for students in those fields?

In short: at least in mathematics, yes. The kind of papers you're talking about usually figure as communal lore or online preprints. Sometimes these things are written as a kind of propaganda for a relatively new or obscure field of mathematics; see, for instance, "Generatingfunctionology."