When a conjecture is disproven, it cuts off a line of research supported by that conjecture.
Is it possible to build a graph of research claims in math? Like a git or dependency tree for proofs (at the research mapping level, not the verification level). Even things like consensus (i.e. "widely believed to be true result") could be mapped. Especially if the scope is curated by experts in contrast with a wide map like the clustering or dimension reduction in projects like Paperscape [0]. Citations be damned.
Is anyone building this? What's the sota in this area?
Most of math is not nearly formalized to this extent.
This paper shows that this hypothesized set of mathematical objects is actually now hypothesized to be a slightly smaller set of objects. Most papers don't care or depend on the distinction this paper creates. One hopes that people who do care are paying attention.
downboots•7mo ago
Is it possible to build a graph of research claims in math? Like a git or dependency tree for proofs (at the research mapping level, not the verification level). Even things like consensus (i.e. "widely believed to be true result") could be mapped. Especially if the scope is curated by experts in contrast with a wide map like the clustering or dimension reduction in projects like Paperscape [0]. Citations be damned.
Is anyone building this? What's the sota in this area?
[0] http://paperscape.org/
downboots•7mo ago
lupire•7mo ago
This paper shows that this hypothesized set of mathematical objects is actually now hypothesized to be a slightly smaller set of objects. Most papers don't care or depend on the distinction this paper creates. One hopes that people who do care are paying attention.