4

Before publishing a paper, is there any resource to get someone to review/ provide feedback for a mathematical aficionado ?

I am specifying the aficionado because I lack any friend/professor able to check the paper. This is the reason why other pointed questions do not fully address the particularities of this.

Furthermore to add extra constrains the article addresses a famous open problem in number theory, so I am afraid any style error may make the review process unsuccessful as people will immediately think: another no-one believing has solved Riemann's Hypothesis.

Those two reasons: the particular topic of the publication, and my total lack of background in the math publications makes this question different from the pointed one.

abr
  • 436
  • 1
    arXiv may be an option. – Clement C. Apr 25 '18 at 20:36
  • The problem with arXiv is for serious subgroups, like NT, requires as well someone to invite you. I have tried pursuing some authors on the space but as expected not a single word back from them. So technically I can not upload/share it. Am I wrong ? (I am not an expert on arXiv though) – abr Apr 25 '18 at 20:38
  • You're right, someone needs to vouch for you. If you are building on someone's work, you can try and contact this paper with your manuscript, for instance. – Clement C. Apr 25 '18 at 20:39
  • maybe just host the paper somewhere online so that there is proof that you wrote it, and then provide some summary of your work on MathOverflow asking if your argument sounds plausible – Andres Mejia Apr 25 '18 at 20:39
  • What problem is it? – it's a hire car baby Apr 25 '18 at 20:40
  • There is no reason to hide X. X=Riemann's hypothesis, that is key to the reluctancy, I guess. – abr Apr 25 '18 at 20:40
  • 1
    I think you have a real problem. Your claim to have solved a famous open problem will be viewed skeptically even if you write with no stylistic errors. – Ethan Bolker Apr 25 '18 at 20:41
  • And most probably they will be right and I will be wrong. But there is chance that is not the case. I have spent the last year studying and working night and day on this. There is no warranty of course. But I am sure no-one sane will spend a second with this. – abr Apr 25 '18 at 20:43
  • @abr then write e.g. on MathOverflow a question, outlining your approach, and more importantly what is new and key to your proof. What is really the thing helping your proof go through, and is novel. Then ask for comments there -- someone may read it and give you feedback. – Clement C. Apr 25 '18 at 20:46
  • @abr it would be great if you had. I once saw a quote which made me laugh... "It's easier to prove the Riemann Hypothesis than it is to get somebody to read your proof of the Riemann hypothesis" – it's a hire car baby Apr 25 '18 at 20:46
  • @ClementC. MO has a strict policy not to consider hypothesized proofs of famous problems. – it's a hire car baby Apr 25 '18 at 20:46
  • 2
    @ProducerofBS Ah. Then, replace MathOverflow by Math.SE in the above. – Clement C. Apr 25 '18 at 20:47
  • 1
    If there is some short crucial part of your proof - perhaps an estimate of an integral - you could ask a question here about that particular argument. Choose a place where you are most worried. Don't say "this is part of a proof of RH". If you can't find some small parts of your argument to isolate this way I think your proof is more likely wrong. – Ethan Bolker Apr 25 '18 at 20:49
  • 1
    (To be clear, I would put my money on the purported proof having a flaw. But in order to get feedback, the first step is to convey the fact that there is something truly new in the argument, instead of a proof boiling down to "I did the same things as everybody before me has tried hundreds of times, but for me it worked, somehow") – Clement C. Apr 25 '18 at 20:50
  • @ClementC. you are being really helpful as the other people commenting. So first thanks for that. – abr Apr 25 '18 at 20:51
  • 1
    No worries. Also, a last comment: it will sound silly, but write your paper in $\LaTeX$. I know virtually no one, even the least prejudiced, who would consider seriously a math or theory paper typeset in Microsoft Word. – Clement C. Apr 25 '18 at 20:53
  • @ClementC. I am quite sure your money would be safe that is wrong. I am not that special, and I can tell you that for time being I have believe several times I was right and later on found different issues, from trivialities at the beginning up to no so simple issues. But being realistic I totally understand the reluctancy of the people on this topic. – abr Apr 25 '18 at 20:53
  • @ClementeC. paper is LaTeX, adhering to specific style guidelines of Inventiones Mathematicae, which the one I would like to give a try to. And of course well formed in a Theorem's style. I am trying to think on your advices during these days and follow them accordingly. The math stack exchange idea can be a good one – abr Apr 25 '18 at 20:56
  • Do you believe openly asking here for feedback could work ? I would not like to publish widely any of the results to prevent -in the eventual and remote case of being right- to create any conflict on the publication, etc. – abr Apr 25 '18 at 20:59

0 Answers0