| ▲ | famouswaffles 2 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
>Publishing papers means very, very little to me. I can publish a paper on a programming language, you know that, right? We both know that you are not getting that published in a reputable journal without a lot of effort beyond merely 'publishing the language I created', but sure, I'm sure you can get something on arxiv. >I obviously estimate my "leanings" as being appropriate. I'm just using the researchers direct quotes. Factually, they had already come up with the approach that ultimately panned out. This really should not be hard to understand. 1. One is something that has been done many times before and the other an unsolved problem. It doesn't take a genius to see one estimate is likely much stronger than the other. If your point hinges on comparing them directly, it's pretty weak. 2. A moderately interesting open research problem is not the same thing as a moderately interesting problem and you seem to be conflating the two. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | staticassertion 2 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> We both know that you are not getting that published in a reputable journal without a lot of effort beyond merely 'publishing the language I created'. But sure, you can get something on arxiv. lol what? There are papers on programming languages all the time. > 1. One is something that has been done many times before and the other an unsolved problem. It doesn't take a genius to see one estimate is likely much stronger than the other. Building a compiler for a new programming language, building net new code, etc, is all stuff that was unsolved / had not been done before. > 2. A moderately interesting open research problem is not the same thing as a moderately interesting problem and you seem to be conflating the two. Feel free to explain the difference, I guess. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||