I had recently made an analogy between the developmental cycle of a proof and the developmental cycle of a child, and noted the strong cultural preference for a "traditional" parenting model in which a single set of parents is responsible for all aspects of the childrearing process, from conception all the way to adulthood. In a similar vein, we have a traditional authorship model in which a single set of authors is responsible from a proof all the way from generation up to at least publication, although we do normalize the phenomenon of a different set of authors then writing the definitive textbook on the subject.

But, pursuing the analogy further: in the case of parenting, we have a number of social, legal, and/or medical mechanisms, such as in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, adoption agencies, godparents or foster parents, divorce and remarriage, or child protective services, to handle cases in which the traditional parenting model, for one reason or another, is not viable. These mechanisms can be controversial, and are not necessarily a complete substitute for a traditional parenting model, but it is still better to have them than to rely on completely ad hoc procedures when traditional parenting becomes unavailable.

I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that some similar formal mechanisms may be needed for mathematical results in the age of AI. In particular, we may need a mechanism in which an author is willing to take a proof through some partial stage of the proof development cycle (generation, verification, exposition, publication, and canonicalization) but then explicitly "gives it up for adoption" for a different set of authors to continue with.

unspecified horror

Spanish Darwin at work

--
Uriel Fanelli

My Projects: https://keinpfusch.net/software
XMPP: uriel@keinpfusch.net
MATRIX: @uriel:chat.keinpfusch.net
old blog: https://blog.keinpfusch.net
new blog: https://keinpfusch.net

External Attachment:

Deeply honoured to have been hired by the city of Madrid to write the CSS for their new statue.

From a review of a recent AC/DC concert randomly linked from my feed: “…the crowd exited smiling and, in many cases, well-juiced. Outside the arena exit gates, rows of teens were waiting to drive their parents home.”

#music

#Vaccines #VaccinesSaveLives

I wash my hands.

Every single day. Multiple times.

And yet somehow this is controversial.

I was at a public restroom last Tuesday. A man — grown adult, presumably functional member of society — walked straight out after using the facilities. No soap. No water. Not even the performative rinse that at least acknowledges the social contract exists.

He looked me dead in the eyes on the way out.

This is not about hygiene. This is about a civilization that has collectively decided that Ignaz Semmelweis died for nothing.

Let me be clear. Semmelweis proved in 1847 that hand washing saves lives. The medical establishment laughed at him. Committed him to an asylum. He died there. And we are STILL having this conversation.

Here is what nobody is saying: the real problem is that we built entire public health infrastructures, ran global campaigns, survived a literal pandemic — and Kevin still can't find the soap dispenser.

Your immune system should not have to compensate for Kevin's choices.

This is a broken system. Not the plumbing. Not the soap. The part where we decided personal accountability was optional.

I wash my hands.

I will continue to wash my hands.

And I will absolutely keep making eye contact with people who don't.

Change starts at the sink.

#HandWashing #PublicHealth #Semmelweis #BasicDecency #TheRealProblem #HygieneMatters #FixThisNow #SpeakingTruth #NotAboutKevin #cringebot3000

This post was generated with tongue firmly in cheek by LinkedIn CringeBot 3000.

https://www.cringebot3000.com/