2
$\begingroup$

I have recently proved something (let's call it theorem X) which seems to be a cute, elementary result (I certainly do not mean Riemann, Goldbach etc.)
I would like to post the following question:
"Do you find theorem X interesting enough to be submitted for publication?"
I do not want somebody to check my proof.

Is this kind of question too soft for here?

$\endgroup$
9
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It seems difficult to answer this properly in abstract. Presumably, one would have to think about this for a few minutes and see if a convincing proof strategy shows up. Is this the sort of vetting you have in mind? $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Aug 2 '16 at 15:24
  • $\begingroup$ @AndrésE.Caicedo Maybe yes.If a proof could be found in a few minutes then I could say that it is not worth to submit it for publication.I could also post a comment now containing the mentioned result.Are you interested in seeing it? $\endgroup$ – Konstantinos Gaitanas Aug 2 '16 at 15:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KonstantinosGaitanas, I do not know if the change I made to the title exactly reflects the intent of the question, but this is to notify you of the edit in case SE2.0 does not do that automatically. $\endgroup$ – zyx Aug 2 '16 at 17:08
  • $\begingroup$ @zyx the change is fine except the "verification" part. $\endgroup$ – Konstantinos Gaitanas Aug 2 '16 at 17:14
  • $\begingroup$ -verification is as in the [proof-verification] and [solution-verification] tags. Maybe you mean originality "determination"? Although I think that would be understood as equivalent to -verification given the existing SE use of the term. $\endgroup$ – zyx Aug 2 '16 at 17:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @zyx I do not wish to have a proof-verification.I also do not want to see if the result is original but if it is interesting enough in order to see if I have any chances of publication.We can prove many things which are original but trivial.(Maybe) a way to restate my question would be:"Is this result to trivial to submit it for publication?" $\endgroup$ – Konstantinos Gaitanas Aug 2 '16 at 17:28
  • $\begingroup$ I see. I think "original" more or less means what you wrote in reference to mathematical literature. There are a lot of things nobody specifically published before but would be difficult to get into a publication because they are too close to what is known. Maybe "novelty" expresses it better. $\endgroup$ – zyx Aug 2 '16 at 17:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @zyx Well, the result pretty much states something which sounds like Mill's theorem (but is not about representing primes). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mills%27_constant My result is original but not very useful in practice.Mill's result is not "trivial" but is not something which could be published anywhere. $\endgroup$ – Konstantinos Gaitanas Aug 2 '16 at 17:36
  • $\begingroup$ As mentioned in an answer, this would probably be too opinion based for main, but it might be worth trying to ask in chat. $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Aug 3 '16 at 5:53
7
$\begingroup$

Such a question would be opinion-based and as such not appropriate for math.SE. (And considering the amount of possible venues of publications, it would probably also be too broad.)

$\endgroup$
0
4
$\begingroup$

Is this kind of question too soft for here?

There are harder and softer phrasings of the questions about publication.

Questions like "is this result original" or "what is the closest result to X in the literature" are ordinary [reference-request].

The question "is this proof potentially publishable", meaning "would it have an appreciable probability of being accepted for publication", is subjective but more or less answerable for specific types of journal. There are so many different journals that a correct and seemingly new theorem or proof can usually be published somewhere, which makes the completely general question of publishability less meaningful. Stating it in terms of whether the result is "interesting enough to publish" would make the question even softer and subject to the objections in the other answer.

$\endgroup$
0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .