Post #2337370
2026-05-09 13:06 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@mc@mathstodon.xyz 2026-05-09 13:21
like, would you ever pass a paper with a contribution that you wouldn't pass otherwise?
-
@jpoiret@types.pl 2026-05-09 13:52
@mc@mathstodon.xyz unless the accompanying paper is well-written and has interesting insights, I would say no
-
@JacquesC2@types.pl 2026-05-09 14:56
@mc@mathstodon.xyz If the contribution is the formalization, there are journals for that. In other publication venues, the main contribution should be something else, supported by the increased certainty of formalization. Unless the formalization teaches us something new, and that's the main point. But that's getting considerably harder to achieve. In general I see the point of publishing as teaching the readers something new, of interest.
-
@mevenlennonbertrand@lipn.info 2026-05-09 18:29
@mc@mathstodon.xyz I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand I agree with others in this thread that, even in a formalization-oriented venue, I expect a paper to bring something new, either on the formalization side (a new approach, technique, tooling, etc) or the topic side (a new proof, new result...). But on the other hand, I believe that contributing to the body of formalised mathematics/CS, in the form of reusable library code is also valuable, even if it brings little new insight. I don't know how we should support such work, papers feel like the wrong currency, but sadly they're the academic credit...