What to do with wrong results in talks?Giving a talk on a paper whose authorship is not finalizedMentioning other people's error in talkDoes being a poorly-performing undergraduate researcher mean that I have little chance of being successful in graduate school?Is a corrigendum necessary if a published result is discovered to duplicate an earlier one?How to answer questions in a conference talk that I should know the answer to, but don't?What is the etiquette around blogging about conference talks?Should I cite a result if the paper doesn't include a proof?Stating surprise about another researcher in my talkWhen scheduling talks in a conference session, what is the etiquette, if any, regarding placement of multiple talks from the same research group?I've found what appears to be a fake paper in a non predatory journal

How do I rename a LINUX host without needing to reboot for the rename to take effect?

Mapping a list into a phase plot

Is there a good way to store credentials outside of a password manager?

Valid Badminton Score?

Why does John Bercow say “unlock” after reading out the results of a vote?

Increase performance creating Mandelbrot set in python

Why "be dealt cards" rather than "be dealing cards"?

Why are on-board computers allowed to change controls without notifying the pilots?

Is there an Impartial Brexit Deal comparison site?

Will it be accepted, if there is no ''Main Character" stereotype?

when is out of tune ok?

Irreducibility of a simple polynomial

Is there a problem with hiding "forgot password" until it's needed?

Opposite of a diet

Can I use my Chinese passport to enter China after I acquired another citizenship?

Greatest common substring

How does residential electricity work?

HashMap containsKey() returns false although hashCode() and equals() are true

Finding all intervals that match predicate in vector

What to do with wrong results in talks?

What is the opposite of 'gravitas'?

Star/Wye electrical connection math symbol

Is there any reason not to eat food that's been dropped on the surface of the moon?

Using parameter substitution on a Bash array



What to do with wrong results in talks?


Giving a talk on a paper whose authorship is not finalizedMentioning other people's error in talkDoes being a poorly-performing undergraduate researcher mean that I have little chance of being successful in graduate school?Is a corrigendum necessary if a published result is discovered to duplicate an earlier one?How to answer questions in a conference talk that I should know the answer to, but don't?What is the etiquette around blogging about conference talks?Should I cite a result if the paper doesn't include a proof?Stating surprise about another researcher in my talkWhen scheduling talks in a conference session, what is the etiquette, if any, regarding placement of multiple talks from the same research group?I've found what appears to be a fake paper in a non predatory journal













5















I am in pure mathematics. Suppose I am giving a talk about my work, and another researcher(s) in my field has published a paper claiming to be an improvement or generalisation of my result, but I either believe this other paper is wrong, or that it is a trivial consequence of my own result. Should I:



a) state this other result in my talk with no comment



b) mention the other result with mild doubts (e.g. say 'so-and-so claims this, but I haven't had time to look at the paper properly')



c) mention the other result and state clearly that I think it's wrong/trivial



d) don't mention it at all / ignore it.



I should also add that I don't know whether the author(s) of the other paper will be at this conference.










share|improve this question







New contributor




Whatif is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 6





    Did you discuss this with the other researcher? Usually, the first thing to do on discovering an error or unclarity is contacting the author with a question (usually these things turn out to be misunderstandings, and the sooner they are corrected the better for everyone).

    – darij grinberg
    6 hours ago






  • 2





    Are you asking two hypothetical questions in parallel (i.e. you expect an answer to "what if I believe the paper is wrong?" and another, perhaps similar, answer to "what if I believe the paper's results are a trivial conclusion of my results?")? Or are you asking "what if I believe the paper must either be wrong or a trivial extension of my results but I haven't had a chance to really check to verify which it is?" If it's the third case, you're kind of a jerk.

    – Ian
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    (Cont.) In terms of the other two possibilities, IMO these warrant rather different responses. If you think the paper is wrong, you should contact the author in private. If you think the paper is trivial given your results, unless it also uses your method, you should mention the result in your talk as a result that's easy to obtain using your method, but that other people have obtained independently using other (hopefully, from your point of view, more complicated) methods. If you think the paper is trivial and it does use your method, then I don't really know what to tell you.

    – Ian
    3 hours ago







  • 5





    Being wrong and being a trivial consequence of your work are two very different things. Is there some reason you're asking both at once?

    – Pete L. Clark
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    If it is a trivial consequence, but it advances the field at least a little, it is a result. If it's trivial, you might found this result by yourself. If you didn't, but someone else did, then it's their gain and your loss. The matter of triviality is substantially different than being wrong. Proving that 7 is a prime is trivial; proving that 8 is a prime is wrong.

    – corey979
    2 hours ago
















5















I am in pure mathematics. Suppose I am giving a talk about my work, and another researcher(s) in my field has published a paper claiming to be an improvement or generalisation of my result, but I either believe this other paper is wrong, or that it is a trivial consequence of my own result. Should I:



a) state this other result in my talk with no comment



b) mention the other result with mild doubts (e.g. say 'so-and-so claims this, but I haven't had time to look at the paper properly')



c) mention the other result and state clearly that I think it's wrong/trivial



d) don't mention it at all / ignore it.



I should also add that I don't know whether the author(s) of the other paper will be at this conference.










share|improve this question







New contributor




Whatif is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 6





    Did you discuss this with the other researcher? Usually, the first thing to do on discovering an error or unclarity is contacting the author with a question (usually these things turn out to be misunderstandings, and the sooner they are corrected the better for everyone).

    – darij grinberg
    6 hours ago






  • 2





    Are you asking two hypothetical questions in parallel (i.e. you expect an answer to "what if I believe the paper is wrong?" and another, perhaps similar, answer to "what if I believe the paper's results are a trivial conclusion of my results?")? Or are you asking "what if I believe the paper must either be wrong or a trivial extension of my results but I haven't had a chance to really check to verify which it is?" If it's the third case, you're kind of a jerk.

    – Ian
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    (Cont.) In terms of the other two possibilities, IMO these warrant rather different responses. If you think the paper is wrong, you should contact the author in private. If you think the paper is trivial given your results, unless it also uses your method, you should mention the result in your talk as a result that's easy to obtain using your method, but that other people have obtained independently using other (hopefully, from your point of view, more complicated) methods. If you think the paper is trivial and it does use your method, then I don't really know what to tell you.

    – Ian
    3 hours ago







  • 5





    Being wrong and being a trivial consequence of your work are two very different things. Is there some reason you're asking both at once?

    – Pete L. Clark
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    If it is a trivial consequence, but it advances the field at least a little, it is a result. If it's trivial, you might found this result by yourself. If you didn't, but someone else did, then it's their gain and your loss. The matter of triviality is substantially different than being wrong. Proving that 7 is a prime is trivial; proving that 8 is a prime is wrong.

    – corey979
    2 hours ago














5












5








5








I am in pure mathematics. Suppose I am giving a talk about my work, and another researcher(s) in my field has published a paper claiming to be an improvement or generalisation of my result, but I either believe this other paper is wrong, or that it is a trivial consequence of my own result. Should I:



a) state this other result in my talk with no comment



b) mention the other result with mild doubts (e.g. say 'so-and-so claims this, but I haven't had time to look at the paper properly')



c) mention the other result and state clearly that I think it's wrong/trivial



d) don't mention it at all / ignore it.



I should also add that I don't know whether the author(s) of the other paper will be at this conference.










share|improve this question







New contributor




Whatif is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I am in pure mathematics. Suppose I am giving a talk about my work, and another researcher(s) in my field has published a paper claiming to be an improvement or generalisation of my result, but I either believe this other paper is wrong, or that it is a trivial consequence of my own result. Should I:



a) state this other result in my talk with no comment



b) mention the other result with mild doubts (e.g. say 'so-and-so claims this, but I haven't had time to look at the paper properly')



c) mention the other result and state clearly that I think it's wrong/trivial



d) don't mention it at all / ignore it.



I should also add that I don't know whether the author(s) of the other paper will be at this conference.







mathematics conference presentation






share|improve this question







New contributor




Whatif is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Whatif is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Whatif is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 6 hours ago









WhatifWhatif

261




261




New contributor




Whatif is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Whatif is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Whatif is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 6





    Did you discuss this with the other researcher? Usually, the first thing to do on discovering an error or unclarity is contacting the author with a question (usually these things turn out to be misunderstandings, and the sooner they are corrected the better for everyone).

    – darij grinberg
    6 hours ago






  • 2





    Are you asking two hypothetical questions in parallel (i.e. you expect an answer to "what if I believe the paper is wrong?" and another, perhaps similar, answer to "what if I believe the paper's results are a trivial conclusion of my results?")? Or are you asking "what if I believe the paper must either be wrong or a trivial extension of my results but I haven't had a chance to really check to verify which it is?" If it's the third case, you're kind of a jerk.

    – Ian
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    (Cont.) In terms of the other two possibilities, IMO these warrant rather different responses. If you think the paper is wrong, you should contact the author in private. If you think the paper is trivial given your results, unless it also uses your method, you should mention the result in your talk as a result that's easy to obtain using your method, but that other people have obtained independently using other (hopefully, from your point of view, more complicated) methods. If you think the paper is trivial and it does use your method, then I don't really know what to tell you.

    – Ian
    3 hours ago







  • 5





    Being wrong and being a trivial consequence of your work are two very different things. Is there some reason you're asking both at once?

    – Pete L. Clark
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    If it is a trivial consequence, but it advances the field at least a little, it is a result. If it's trivial, you might found this result by yourself. If you didn't, but someone else did, then it's their gain and your loss. The matter of triviality is substantially different than being wrong. Proving that 7 is a prime is trivial; proving that 8 is a prime is wrong.

    – corey979
    2 hours ago













  • 6





    Did you discuss this with the other researcher? Usually, the first thing to do on discovering an error or unclarity is contacting the author with a question (usually these things turn out to be misunderstandings, and the sooner they are corrected the better for everyone).

    – darij grinberg
    6 hours ago






  • 2





    Are you asking two hypothetical questions in parallel (i.e. you expect an answer to "what if I believe the paper is wrong?" and another, perhaps similar, answer to "what if I believe the paper's results are a trivial conclusion of my results?")? Or are you asking "what if I believe the paper must either be wrong or a trivial extension of my results but I haven't had a chance to really check to verify which it is?" If it's the third case, you're kind of a jerk.

    – Ian
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    (Cont.) In terms of the other two possibilities, IMO these warrant rather different responses. If you think the paper is wrong, you should contact the author in private. If you think the paper is trivial given your results, unless it also uses your method, you should mention the result in your talk as a result that's easy to obtain using your method, but that other people have obtained independently using other (hopefully, from your point of view, more complicated) methods. If you think the paper is trivial and it does use your method, then I don't really know what to tell you.

    – Ian
    3 hours ago







  • 5





    Being wrong and being a trivial consequence of your work are two very different things. Is there some reason you're asking both at once?

    – Pete L. Clark
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    If it is a trivial consequence, but it advances the field at least a little, it is a result. If it's trivial, you might found this result by yourself. If you didn't, but someone else did, then it's their gain and your loss. The matter of triviality is substantially different than being wrong. Proving that 7 is a prime is trivial; proving that 8 is a prime is wrong.

    – corey979
    2 hours ago








6




6





Did you discuss this with the other researcher? Usually, the first thing to do on discovering an error or unclarity is contacting the author with a question (usually these things turn out to be misunderstandings, and the sooner they are corrected the better for everyone).

– darij grinberg
6 hours ago





Did you discuss this with the other researcher? Usually, the first thing to do on discovering an error or unclarity is contacting the author with a question (usually these things turn out to be misunderstandings, and the sooner they are corrected the better for everyone).

– darij grinberg
6 hours ago




2




2





Are you asking two hypothetical questions in parallel (i.e. you expect an answer to "what if I believe the paper is wrong?" and another, perhaps similar, answer to "what if I believe the paper's results are a trivial conclusion of my results?")? Or are you asking "what if I believe the paper must either be wrong or a trivial extension of my results but I haven't had a chance to really check to verify which it is?" If it's the third case, you're kind of a jerk.

– Ian
3 hours ago





Are you asking two hypothetical questions in parallel (i.e. you expect an answer to "what if I believe the paper is wrong?" and another, perhaps similar, answer to "what if I believe the paper's results are a trivial conclusion of my results?")? Or are you asking "what if I believe the paper must either be wrong or a trivial extension of my results but I haven't had a chance to really check to verify which it is?" If it's the third case, you're kind of a jerk.

– Ian
3 hours ago




1




1





(Cont.) In terms of the other two possibilities, IMO these warrant rather different responses. If you think the paper is wrong, you should contact the author in private. If you think the paper is trivial given your results, unless it also uses your method, you should mention the result in your talk as a result that's easy to obtain using your method, but that other people have obtained independently using other (hopefully, from your point of view, more complicated) methods. If you think the paper is trivial and it does use your method, then I don't really know what to tell you.

– Ian
3 hours ago






(Cont.) In terms of the other two possibilities, IMO these warrant rather different responses. If you think the paper is wrong, you should contact the author in private. If you think the paper is trivial given your results, unless it also uses your method, you should mention the result in your talk as a result that's easy to obtain using your method, but that other people have obtained independently using other (hopefully, from your point of view, more complicated) methods. If you think the paper is trivial and it does use your method, then I don't really know what to tell you.

– Ian
3 hours ago





5




5





Being wrong and being a trivial consequence of your work are two very different things. Is there some reason you're asking both at once?

– Pete L. Clark
3 hours ago





Being wrong and being a trivial consequence of your work are two very different things. Is there some reason you're asking both at once?

– Pete L. Clark
3 hours ago




1




1





If it is a trivial consequence, but it advances the field at least a little, it is a result. If it's trivial, you might found this result by yourself. If you didn't, but someone else did, then it's their gain and your loss. The matter of triviality is substantially different than being wrong. Proving that 7 is a prime is trivial; proving that 8 is a prime is wrong.

– corey979
2 hours ago






If it is a trivial consequence, but it advances the field at least a little, it is a result. If it's trivial, you might found this result by yourself. If you didn't, but someone else did, then it's their gain and your loss. The matter of triviality is substantially different than being wrong. Proving that 7 is a prime is trivial; proving that 8 is a prime is wrong.

– corey979
2 hours ago











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















8















I either believe this other paper is wrong, or that it is a trivial consequence of my own result




Let me be blunt, if it's wrong and a trivial consequence of your own result, then your result is wrong too. Make up your mind: which is it? Wrong and trivial are not synonymous. The answer differs depending on which applies.



If you believe that the result is wrong.



  • If you want to publicly humiliate the other researcher, then you can say during your talk that the other researcher's result is wrong. You will not make any friends and will not impress anyone by doing this.

  • Otherwise, your first course of action is to talk about it with the other researcher in private. Have you even considered that you misunderstood something? Most people are reasonable, and if the result is truly wrong, then you will know how to act based on your discussion. Otherwise, this is a whole can of worms, and the answer depends on a ton of factors.

  • If for some reason you have not had time to talk with the other researcher, then I would not mention the result at all, and elude the question if asked about it during the talk. If you really don't want to elude it, say that you are aware of a possible contradiction between your paper and the other one and that you are looking into it. (See, that's called tact.) I would also take the opportunity of having the other researcher in the same room to talk about it after the talk, in private.

If you believe the result is a "trivial" consequence of your work.



  • If you want to insult the other researcher in public, then say that the other word is a "trivial consequence" of your own work during your talk. You will not make any friends and will not impress anyone by doing this.

  • The proper course of action, in my opinion, is to mention during your talk that indeed, you can recover older results using your theorems. You can even praise the other researcher for finding the older result without developing so much machinery. As an added bonus, this gives motivation for your own work: it's so interesting that it gives results that people already spent a lot of time proving before!

  • Or you can simply not mention it at all. If asked, you can say that it's nice to see other people being interested in your own work and finding applications.

Because, once again, I want to be very clear. It sounds like the other paper predates yours. Then credit for the "trivial" result also goes to the other researcher; we don't rename theorems as soon as someone finds a more general one. Moreover, what you consider to be a "trivial" consequence is not trivial at all. The other paper influenced you during your research, even indirectly. It probably gave you ideas about what results to prove, or even ideas for proofs. It's easier to follow in someone's footsteps than it is to break new ground.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




user106021 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1





    Why do you think that it sounds like the other paper predates that of the OP? I formed the opposite impression.

    – Yemon Choi
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    @YemonChoi is right, my paper predates the other one. Sorry if not clear in the question.

    – Whatif
    5 hours ago






  • 3





    @SolarMike OP is looking for someone to validate their intention of publicly humiliating someone else. I am setting the record straight.

    – user106021
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    @user106021 I disagree with your interpretation, even if I think the OP would do best not to cause a fuss. Once again, it does seem like you are jumping to conclusions or projecting. How do you know the OP isn't more junior than the people who claim to have improved their results? This seems very possible to me in pure maths

    – Yemon Choi
    5 hours ago







  • 1





    I disagree with this part: "say that you are aware of a possible contradiction between your paper and the other one and that you are looking into it. (See, that's called tact.)" In fact, either you are aware of a contradiction, which means you already verify that this is indeed the case, or you are not. In the latter case, you do not suggest that there may be a contradiction. Rather than tactful that is rude and potentially damaging to yourself if you end up being wrong. Better to simply say that you heard of the other result but have not had time to examine it.

    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    2 hours ago


















2














First, you should know that since your results appeared first (as you stated in a comment), you don’t actually have a strong self-interest to try to make the follow-up results of the other researcher look bad. In a typical scenario, their publishing something that improves or generalizes your result will actually make your own work look better, not worse, including possibly if their improvement is not trivial (actually a trivial improvement may be slightly more embarrassing to you, for example if they discover that a trivial modification to one of your proofs ends up proving a much stronger result. But even then you’ll get the credit of being the first person who published an innovative new proof technique that was used to prove that strong result). So all things considered, it’s pretty likely that your incentives are actually aligned with those of the other researcher, and being as kind and charitable to them as possible (without compromising your integrity, of course) will be beneficial not only to them but also to you. And remember you don’t have to discuss every private thought you have: you may think the improvement is trivial, but at the end of the day, who are you to say? That’s just an opinion anyway. Consider not mentioning it and letting people draw their own conclusions.



Whar I wrote above pertained to the scenario of a correct improvement. Coming to the other possibility you mentioned, if you believe the work of the other researcher is wrong, then it’s wrong and you shouldn’t pretend otherwise or feign ignorance but simply be matter-of-fact about it - if you discuss the result, state that you believe it’s wrong along with your level of certainty that that’s the case, without gloating or schadenfreude. Don’t say you haven’t had the time to look at it if that’s not true. But you may consider simply not mentioning the result at all if its relevance to what you are discussing is not high.



Incidentally, not mentioning the result may also end up offending the author if they are attending your talk... it’s a tricky business, academia! ;-) Anyway, good luck.






share|improve this answer






























    0














    I lean towards "ignore it".



    In addition to the issues of academic politics, there is the much bigger issue of confusing the audience. They have limited ability to process information (and math is particularly hard, even for mathematicians). If you mix in a "he said, she said" into your topic along with new results, you end up overloading the presentation. They will have a hard enough time learning from and following the talk, let alone doing justice to an issue of controversy. You just don't have time enough for a good exposition of the rival's arguments and your replies. If someone brings it up in Q&A, deal with it then.



    Of course in a paper, you can/should be more all encompassing. But the goals of a paper are different than the goals of a talk.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.



















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "415"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );






      Whatif is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127076%2fwhat-to-do-with-wrong-results-in-talks%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      8















      I either believe this other paper is wrong, or that it is a trivial consequence of my own result




      Let me be blunt, if it's wrong and a trivial consequence of your own result, then your result is wrong too. Make up your mind: which is it? Wrong and trivial are not synonymous. The answer differs depending on which applies.



      If you believe that the result is wrong.



      • If you want to publicly humiliate the other researcher, then you can say during your talk that the other researcher's result is wrong. You will not make any friends and will not impress anyone by doing this.

      • Otherwise, your first course of action is to talk about it with the other researcher in private. Have you even considered that you misunderstood something? Most people are reasonable, and if the result is truly wrong, then you will know how to act based on your discussion. Otherwise, this is a whole can of worms, and the answer depends on a ton of factors.

      • If for some reason you have not had time to talk with the other researcher, then I would not mention the result at all, and elude the question if asked about it during the talk. If you really don't want to elude it, say that you are aware of a possible contradiction between your paper and the other one and that you are looking into it. (See, that's called tact.) I would also take the opportunity of having the other researcher in the same room to talk about it after the talk, in private.

      If you believe the result is a "trivial" consequence of your work.



      • If you want to insult the other researcher in public, then say that the other word is a "trivial consequence" of your own work during your talk. You will not make any friends and will not impress anyone by doing this.

      • The proper course of action, in my opinion, is to mention during your talk that indeed, you can recover older results using your theorems. You can even praise the other researcher for finding the older result without developing so much machinery. As an added bonus, this gives motivation for your own work: it's so interesting that it gives results that people already spent a lot of time proving before!

      • Or you can simply not mention it at all. If asked, you can say that it's nice to see other people being interested in your own work and finding applications.

      Because, once again, I want to be very clear. It sounds like the other paper predates yours. Then credit for the "trivial" result also goes to the other researcher; we don't rename theorems as soon as someone finds a more general one. Moreover, what you consider to be a "trivial" consequence is not trivial at all. The other paper influenced you during your research, even indirectly. It probably gave you ideas about what results to prove, or even ideas for proofs. It's easier to follow in someone's footsteps than it is to break new ground.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      user106021 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.















      • 1





        Why do you think that it sounds like the other paper predates that of the OP? I formed the opposite impression.

        – Yemon Choi
        5 hours ago






      • 2





        @YemonChoi is right, my paper predates the other one. Sorry if not clear in the question.

        – Whatif
        5 hours ago






      • 3





        @SolarMike OP is looking for someone to validate their intention of publicly humiliating someone else. I am setting the record straight.

        – user106021
        5 hours ago






      • 2





        @user106021 I disagree with your interpretation, even if I think the OP would do best not to cause a fuss. Once again, it does seem like you are jumping to conclusions or projecting. How do you know the OP isn't more junior than the people who claim to have improved their results? This seems very possible to me in pure maths

        – Yemon Choi
        5 hours ago







      • 1





        I disagree with this part: "say that you are aware of a possible contradiction between your paper and the other one and that you are looking into it. (See, that's called tact.)" In fact, either you are aware of a contradiction, which means you already verify that this is indeed the case, or you are not. In the latter case, you do not suggest that there may be a contradiction. Rather than tactful that is rude and potentially damaging to yourself if you end up being wrong. Better to simply say that you heard of the other result but have not had time to examine it.

        – Andrés E. Caicedo
        2 hours ago















      8















      I either believe this other paper is wrong, or that it is a trivial consequence of my own result




      Let me be blunt, if it's wrong and a trivial consequence of your own result, then your result is wrong too. Make up your mind: which is it? Wrong and trivial are not synonymous. The answer differs depending on which applies.



      If you believe that the result is wrong.



      • If you want to publicly humiliate the other researcher, then you can say during your talk that the other researcher's result is wrong. You will not make any friends and will not impress anyone by doing this.

      • Otherwise, your first course of action is to talk about it with the other researcher in private. Have you even considered that you misunderstood something? Most people are reasonable, and if the result is truly wrong, then you will know how to act based on your discussion. Otherwise, this is a whole can of worms, and the answer depends on a ton of factors.

      • If for some reason you have not had time to talk with the other researcher, then I would not mention the result at all, and elude the question if asked about it during the talk. If you really don't want to elude it, say that you are aware of a possible contradiction between your paper and the other one and that you are looking into it. (See, that's called tact.) I would also take the opportunity of having the other researcher in the same room to talk about it after the talk, in private.

      If you believe the result is a "trivial" consequence of your work.



      • If you want to insult the other researcher in public, then say that the other word is a "trivial consequence" of your own work during your talk. You will not make any friends and will not impress anyone by doing this.

      • The proper course of action, in my opinion, is to mention during your talk that indeed, you can recover older results using your theorems. You can even praise the other researcher for finding the older result without developing so much machinery. As an added bonus, this gives motivation for your own work: it's so interesting that it gives results that people already spent a lot of time proving before!

      • Or you can simply not mention it at all. If asked, you can say that it's nice to see other people being interested in your own work and finding applications.

      Because, once again, I want to be very clear. It sounds like the other paper predates yours. Then credit for the "trivial" result also goes to the other researcher; we don't rename theorems as soon as someone finds a more general one. Moreover, what you consider to be a "trivial" consequence is not trivial at all. The other paper influenced you during your research, even indirectly. It probably gave you ideas about what results to prove, or even ideas for proofs. It's easier to follow in someone's footsteps than it is to break new ground.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      user106021 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.















      • 1





        Why do you think that it sounds like the other paper predates that of the OP? I formed the opposite impression.

        – Yemon Choi
        5 hours ago






      • 2





        @YemonChoi is right, my paper predates the other one. Sorry if not clear in the question.

        – Whatif
        5 hours ago






      • 3





        @SolarMike OP is looking for someone to validate their intention of publicly humiliating someone else. I am setting the record straight.

        – user106021
        5 hours ago






      • 2





        @user106021 I disagree with your interpretation, even if I think the OP would do best not to cause a fuss. Once again, it does seem like you are jumping to conclusions or projecting. How do you know the OP isn't more junior than the people who claim to have improved their results? This seems very possible to me in pure maths

        – Yemon Choi
        5 hours ago







      • 1





        I disagree with this part: "say that you are aware of a possible contradiction between your paper and the other one and that you are looking into it. (See, that's called tact.)" In fact, either you are aware of a contradiction, which means you already verify that this is indeed the case, or you are not. In the latter case, you do not suggest that there may be a contradiction. Rather than tactful that is rude and potentially damaging to yourself if you end up being wrong. Better to simply say that you heard of the other result but have not had time to examine it.

        – Andrés E. Caicedo
        2 hours ago













      8












      8








      8








      I either believe this other paper is wrong, or that it is a trivial consequence of my own result




      Let me be blunt, if it's wrong and a trivial consequence of your own result, then your result is wrong too. Make up your mind: which is it? Wrong and trivial are not synonymous. The answer differs depending on which applies.



      If you believe that the result is wrong.



      • If you want to publicly humiliate the other researcher, then you can say during your talk that the other researcher's result is wrong. You will not make any friends and will not impress anyone by doing this.

      • Otherwise, your first course of action is to talk about it with the other researcher in private. Have you even considered that you misunderstood something? Most people are reasonable, and if the result is truly wrong, then you will know how to act based on your discussion. Otherwise, this is a whole can of worms, and the answer depends on a ton of factors.

      • If for some reason you have not had time to talk with the other researcher, then I would not mention the result at all, and elude the question if asked about it during the talk. If you really don't want to elude it, say that you are aware of a possible contradiction between your paper and the other one and that you are looking into it. (See, that's called tact.) I would also take the opportunity of having the other researcher in the same room to talk about it after the talk, in private.

      If you believe the result is a "trivial" consequence of your work.



      • If you want to insult the other researcher in public, then say that the other word is a "trivial consequence" of your own work during your talk. You will not make any friends and will not impress anyone by doing this.

      • The proper course of action, in my opinion, is to mention during your talk that indeed, you can recover older results using your theorems. You can even praise the other researcher for finding the older result without developing so much machinery. As an added bonus, this gives motivation for your own work: it's so interesting that it gives results that people already spent a lot of time proving before!

      • Or you can simply not mention it at all. If asked, you can say that it's nice to see other people being interested in your own work and finding applications.

      Because, once again, I want to be very clear. It sounds like the other paper predates yours. Then credit for the "trivial" result also goes to the other researcher; we don't rename theorems as soon as someone finds a more general one. Moreover, what you consider to be a "trivial" consequence is not trivial at all. The other paper influenced you during your research, even indirectly. It probably gave you ideas about what results to prove, or even ideas for proofs. It's easier to follow in someone's footsteps than it is to break new ground.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      user106021 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      I either believe this other paper is wrong, or that it is a trivial consequence of my own result




      Let me be blunt, if it's wrong and a trivial consequence of your own result, then your result is wrong too. Make up your mind: which is it? Wrong and trivial are not synonymous. The answer differs depending on which applies.



      If you believe that the result is wrong.



      • If you want to publicly humiliate the other researcher, then you can say during your talk that the other researcher's result is wrong. You will not make any friends and will not impress anyone by doing this.

      • Otherwise, your first course of action is to talk about it with the other researcher in private. Have you even considered that you misunderstood something? Most people are reasonable, and if the result is truly wrong, then you will know how to act based on your discussion. Otherwise, this is a whole can of worms, and the answer depends on a ton of factors.

      • If for some reason you have not had time to talk with the other researcher, then I would not mention the result at all, and elude the question if asked about it during the talk. If you really don't want to elude it, say that you are aware of a possible contradiction between your paper and the other one and that you are looking into it. (See, that's called tact.) I would also take the opportunity of having the other researcher in the same room to talk about it after the talk, in private.

      If you believe the result is a "trivial" consequence of your work.



      • If you want to insult the other researcher in public, then say that the other word is a "trivial consequence" of your own work during your talk. You will not make any friends and will not impress anyone by doing this.

      • The proper course of action, in my opinion, is to mention during your talk that indeed, you can recover older results using your theorems. You can even praise the other researcher for finding the older result without developing so much machinery. As an added bonus, this gives motivation for your own work: it's so interesting that it gives results that people already spent a lot of time proving before!

      • Or you can simply not mention it at all. If asked, you can say that it's nice to see other people being interested in your own work and finding applications.

      Because, once again, I want to be very clear. It sounds like the other paper predates yours. Then credit for the "trivial" result also goes to the other researcher; we don't rename theorems as soon as someone finds a more general one. Moreover, what you consider to be a "trivial" consequence is not trivial at all. The other paper influenced you during your research, even indirectly. It probably gave you ideas about what results to prove, or even ideas for proofs. It's easier to follow in someone's footsteps than it is to break new ground.







      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      user106021 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 5 hours ago





















      New contributor




      user106021 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      answered 5 hours ago









      user106021user106021

      912




      912




      New contributor




      user106021 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      user106021 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      user106021 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.







      • 1





        Why do you think that it sounds like the other paper predates that of the OP? I formed the opposite impression.

        – Yemon Choi
        5 hours ago






      • 2





        @YemonChoi is right, my paper predates the other one. Sorry if not clear in the question.

        – Whatif
        5 hours ago






      • 3





        @SolarMike OP is looking for someone to validate their intention of publicly humiliating someone else. I am setting the record straight.

        – user106021
        5 hours ago






      • 2





        @user106021 I disagree with your interpretation, even if I think the OP would do best not to cause a fuss. Once again, it does seem like you are jumping to conclusions or projecting. How do you know the OP isn't more junior than the people who claim to have improved their results? This seems very possible to me in pure maths

        – Yemon Choi
        5 hours ago







      • 1





        I disagree with this part: "say that you are aware of a possible contradiction between your paper and the other one and that you are looking into it. (See, that's called tact.)" In fact, either you are aware of a contradiction, which means you already verify that this is indeed the case, or you are not. In the latter case, you do not suggest that there may be a contradiction. Rather than tactful that is rude and potentially damaging to yourself if you end up being wrong. Better to simply say that you heard of the other result but have not had time to examine it.

        – Andrés E. Caicedo
        2 hours ago












      • 1





        Why do you think that it sounds like the other paper predates that of the OP? I formed the opposite impression.

        – Yemon Choi
        5 hours ago






      • 2





        @YemonChoi is right, my paper predates the other one. Sorry if not clear in the question.

        – Whatif
        5 hours ago






      • 3





        @SolarMike OP is looking for someone to validate their intention of publicly humiliating someone else. I am setting the record straight.

        – user106021
        5 hours ago






      • 2





        @user106021 I disagree with your interpretation, even if I think the OP would do best not to cause a fuss. Once again, it does seem like you are jumping to conclusions or projecting. How do you know the OP isn't more junior than the people who claim to have improved their results? This seems very possible to me in pure maths

        – Yemon Choi
        5 hours ago







      • 1





        I disagree with this part: "say that you are aware of a possible contradiction between your paper and the other one and that you are looking into it. (See, that's called tact.)" In fact, either you are aware of a contradiction, which means you already verify that this is indeed the case, or you are not. In the latter case, you do not suggest that there may be a contradiction. Rather than tactful that is rude and potentially damaging to yourself if you end up being wrong. Better to simply say that you heard of the other result but have not had time to examine it.

        – Andrés E. Caicedo
        2 hours ago







      1




      1





      Why do you think that it sounds like the other paper predates that of the OP? I formed the opposite impression.

      – Yemon Choi
      5 hours ago





      Why do you think that it sounds like the other paper predates that of the OP? I formed the opposite impression.

      – Yemon Choi
      5 hours ago




      2




      2





      @YemonChoi is right, my paper predates the other one. Sorry if not clear in the question.

      – Whatif
      5 hours ago





      @YemonChoi is right, my paper predates the other one. Sorry if not clear in the question.

      – Whatif
      5 hours ago




      3




      3





      @SolarMike OP is looking for someone to validate their intention of publicly humiliating someone else. I am setting the record straight.

      – user106021
      5 hours ago





      @SolarMike OP is looking for someone to validate their intention of publicly humiliating someone else. I am setting the record straight.

      – user106021
      5 hours ago




      2




      2





      @user106021 I disagree with your interpretation, even if I think the OP would do best not to cause a fuss. Once again, it does seem like you are jumping to conclusions or projecting. How do you know the OP isn't more junior than the people who claim to have improved their results? This seems very possible to me in pure maths

      – Yemon Choi
      5 hours ago






      @user106021 I disagree with your interpretation, even if I think the OP would do best not to cause a fuss. Once again, it does seem like you are jumping to conclusions or projecting. How do you know the OP isn't more junior than the people who claim to have improved their results? This seems very possible to me in pure maths

      – Yemon Choi
      5 hours ago





      1




      1





      I disagree with this part: "say that you are aware of a possible contradiction between your paper and the other one and that you are looking into it. (See, that's called tact.)" In fact, either you are aware of a contradiction, which means you already verify that this is indeed the case, or you are not. In the latter case, you do not suggest that there may be a contradiction. Rather than tactful that is rude and potentially damaging to yourself if you end up being wrong. Better to simply say that you heard of the other result but have not had time to examine it.

      – Andrés E. Caicedo
      2 hours ago





      I disagree with this part: "say that you are aware of a possible contradiction between your paper and the other one and that you are looking into it. (See, that's called tact.)" In fact, either you are aware of a contradiction, which means you already verify that this is indeed the case, or you are not. In the latter case, you do not suggest that there may be a contradiction. Rather than tactful that is rude and potentially damaging to yourself if you end up being wrong. Better to simply say that you heard of the other result but have not had time to examine it.

      – Andrés E. Caicedo
      2 hours ago











      2














      First, you should know that since your results appeared first (as you stated in a comment), you don’t actually have a strong self-interest to try to make the follow-up results of the other researcher look bad. In a typical scenario, their publishing something that improves or generalizes your result will actually make your own work look better, not worse, including possibly if their improvement is not trivial (actually a trivial improvement may be slightly more embarrassing to you, for example if they discover that a trivial modification to one of your proofs ends up proving a much stronger result. But even then you’ll get the credit of being the first person who published an innovative new proof technique that was used to prove that strong result). So all things considered, it’s pretty likely that your incentives are actually aligned with those of the other researcher, and being as kind and charitable to them as possible (without compromising your integrity, of course) will be beneficial not only to them but also to you. And remember you don’t have to discuss every private thought you have: you may think the improvement is trivial, but at the end of the day, who are you to say? That’s just an opinion anyway. Consider not mentioning it and letting people draw their own conclusions.



      Whar I wrote above pertained to the scenario of a correct improvement. Coming to the other possibility you mentioned, if you believe the work of the other researcher is wrong, then it’s wrong and you shouldn’t pretend otherwise or feign ignorance but simply be matter-of-fact about it - if you discuss the result, state that you believe it’s wrong along with your level of certainty that that’s the case, without gloating or schadenfreude. Don’t say you haven’t had the time to look at it if that’s not true. But you may consider simply not mentioning the result at all if its relevance to what you are discussing is not high.



      Incidentally, not mentioning the result may also end up offending the author if they are attending your talk... it’s a tricky business, academia! ;-) Anyway, good luck.






      share|improve this answer



























        2














        First, you should know that since your results appeared first (as you stated in a comment), you don’t actually have a strong self-interest to try to make the follow-up results of the other researcher look bad. In a typical scenario, their publishing something that improves or generalizes your result will actually make your own work look better, not worse, including possibly if their improvement is not trivial (actually a trivial improvement may be slightly more embarrassing to you, for example if they discover that a trivial modification to one of your proofs ends up proving a much stronger result. But even then you’ll get the credit of being the first person who published an innovative new proof technique that was used to prove that strong result). So all things considered, it’s pretty likely that your incentives are actually aligned with those of the other researcher, and being as kind and charitable to them as possible (without compromising your integrity, of course) will be beneficial not only to them but also to you. And remember you don’t have to discuss every private thought you have: you may think the improvement is trivial, but at the end of the day, who are you to say? That’s just an opinion anyway. Consider not mentioning it and letting people draw their own conclusions.



        Whar I wrote above pertained to the scenario of a correct improvement. Coming to the other possibility you mentioned, if you believe the work of the other researcher is wrong, then it’s wrong and you shouldn’t pretend otherwise or feign ignorance but simply be matter-of-fact about it - if you discuss the result, state that you believe it’s wrong along with your level of certainty that that’s the case, without gloating or schadenfreude. Don’t say you haven’t had the time to look at it if that’s not true. But you may consider simply not mentioning the result at all if its relevance to what you are discussing is not high.



        Incidentally, not mentioning the result may also end up offending the author if they are attending your talk... it’s a tricky business, academia! ;-) Anyway, good luck.






        share|improve this answer

























          2












          2








          2







          First, you should know that since your results appeared first (as you stated in a comment), you don’t actually have a strong self-interest to try to make the follow-up results of the other researcher look bad. In a typical scenario, their publishing something that improves or generalizes your result will actually make your own work look better, not worse, including possibly if their improvement is not trivial (actually a trivial improvement may be slightly more embarrassing to you, for example if they discover that a trivial modification to one of your proofs ends up proving a much stronger result. But even then you’ll get the credit of being the first person who published an innovative new proof technique that was used to prove that strong result). So all things considered, it’s pretty likely that your incentives are actually aligned with those of the other researcher, and being as kind and charitable to them as possible (without compromising your integrity, of course) will be beneficial not only to them but also to you. And remember you don’t have to discuss every private thought you have: you may think the improvement is trivial, but at the end of the day, who are you to say? That’s just an opinion anyway. Consider not mentioning it and letting people draw their own conclusions.



          Whar I wrote above pertained to the scenario of a correct improvement. Coming to the other possibility you mentioned, if you believe the work of the other researcher is wrong, then it’s wrong and you shouldn’t pretend otherwise or feign ignorance but simply be matter-of-fact about it - if you discuss the result, state that you believe it’s wrong along with your level of certainty that that’s the case, without gloating or schadenfreude. Don’t say you haven’t had the time to look at it if that’s not true. But you may consider simply not mentioning the result at all if its relevance to what you are discussing is not high.



          Incidentally, not mentioning the result may also end up offending the author if they are attending your talk... it’s a tricky business, academia! ;-) Anyway, good luck.






          share|improve this answer













          First, you should know that since your results appeared first (as you stated in a comment), you don’t actually have a strong self-interest to try to make the follow-up results of the other researcher look bad. In a typical scenario, their publishing something that improves or generalizes your result will actually make your own work look better, not worse, including possibly if their improvement is not trivial (actually a trivial improvement may be slightly more embarrassing to you, for example if they discover that a trivial modification to one of your proofs ends up proving a much stronger result. But even then you’ll get the credit of being the first person who published an innovative new proof technique that was used to prove that strong result). So all things considered, it’s pretty likely that your incentives are actually aligned with those of the other researcher, and being as kind and charitable to them as possible (without compromising your integrity, of course) will be beneficial not only to them but also to you. And remember you don’t have to discuss every private thought you have: you may think the improvement is trivial, but at the end of the day, who are you to say? That’s just an opinion anyway. Consider not mentioning it and letting people draw their own conclusions.



          Whar I wrote above pertained to the scenario of a correct improvement. Coming to the other possibility you mentioned, if you believe the work of the other researcher is wrong, then it’s wrong and you shouldn’t pretend otherwise or feign ignorance but simply be matter-of-fact about it - if you discuss the result, state that you believe it’s wrong along with your level of certainty that that’s the case, without gloating or schadenfreude. Don’t say you haven’t had the time to look at it if that’s not true. But you may consider simply not mentioning the result at all if its relevance to what you are discussing is not high.



          Incidentally, not mentioning the result may also end up offending the author if they are attending your talk... it’s a tricky business, academia! ;-) Anyway, good luck.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 2 hours ago









          Dan RomikDan Romik

          87.1k22189285




          87.1k22189285





















              0














              I lean towards "ignore it".



              In addition to the issues of academic politics, there is the much bigger issue of confusing the audience. They have limited ability to process information (and math is particularly hard, even for mathematicians). If you mix in a "he said, she said" into your topic along with new results, you end up overloading the presentation. They will have a hard enough time learning from and following the talk, let alone doing justice to an issue of controversy. You just don't have time enough for a good exposition of the rival's arguments and your replies. If someone brings it up in Q&A, deal with it then.



              Of course in a paper, you can/should be more all encompassing. But the goals of a paper are different than the goals of a talk.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                0














                I lean towards "ignore it".



                In addition to the issues of academic politics, there is the much bigger issue of confusing the audience. They have limited ability to process information (and math is particularly hard, even for mathematicians). If you mix in a "he said, she said" into your topic along with new results, you end up overloading the presentation. They will have a hard enough time learning from and following the talk, let alone doing justice to an issue of controversy. You just don't have time enough for a good exposition of the rival's arguments and your replies. If someone brings it up in Q&A, deal with it then.



                Of course in a paper, you can/should be more all encompassing. But the goals of a paper are different than the goals of a talk.






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                  0












                  0








                  0







                  I lean towards "ignore it".



                  In addition to the issues of academic politics, there is the much bigger issue of confusing the audience. They have limited ability to process information (and math is particularly hard, even for mathematicians). If you mix in a "he said, she said" into your topic along with new results, you end up overloading the presentation. They will have a hard enough time learning from and following the talk, let alone doing justice to an issue of controversy. You just don't have time enough for a good exposition of the rival's arguments and your replies. If someone brings it up in Q&A, deal with it then.



                  Of course in a paper, you can/should be more all encompassing. But the goals of a paper are different than the goals of a talk.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.










                  I lean towards "ignore it".



                  In addition to the issues of academic politics, there is the much bigger issue of confusing the audience. They have limited ability to process information (and math is particularly hard, even for mathematicians). If you mix in a "he said, she said" into your topic along with new results, you end up overloading the presentation. They will have a hard enough time learning from and following the talk, let alone doing justice to an issue of controversy. You just don't have time enough for a good exposition of the rival's arguments and your replies. If someone brings it up in Q&A, deal with it then.



                  Of course in a paper, you can/should be more all encompassing. But the goals of a paper are different than the goals of a talk.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 18 mins ago









                  guestguest

                  111




                  111




                  New contributor




                  guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                      Whatif is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Whatif is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Whatif is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                      Whatif is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127076%2fwhat-to-do-with-wrong-results-in-talks%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Oświęcim Innehåll Historia | Källor | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmeny50°2′18″N 19°13′17″Ö / 50.03833°N 19.22139°Ö / 50.03833; 19.2213950°2′18″N 19°13′17″Ö / 50.03833°N 19.22139°Ö / 50.03833; 19.221393089658Nordisk familjebok, AuschwitzInsidan tro och existensJewish Community i OświęcimAuschwitz Jewish Center: MuseumAuschwitz Jewish Center

                      Valle di Casies Indice Geografia fisica | Origini del nome | Storia | Società | Amministrazione | Sport | Note | Bibliografia | Voci correlate | Altri progetti | Collegamenti esterni | Menu di navigazione46°46′N 12°11′E / 46.766667°N 12.183333°E46.766667; 12.183333 (Valle di Casies)46°46′N 12°11′E / 46.766667°N 12.183333°E46.766667; 12.183333 (Valle di Casies)Sito istituzionaleAstat Censimento della popolazione 2011 - Determinazione della consistenza dei tre gruppi linguistici della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano-Alto Adige - giugno 2012Numeri e fattiValle di CasiesDato IstatTabella dei gradi/giorno dei Comuni italiani raggruppati per Regione e Provincia26 agosto 1993, n. 412Heraldry of the World: GsiesStatistiche I.StatValCasies.comWikimedia CommonsWikimedia CommonsValle di CasiesSito ufficialeValle di CasiesMM14870458910042978-6

                      Typsetting diagram chases (with TikZ?) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)How to define the default vertical distance between nodes?Draw edge on arcNumerical conditional within tikz keys?TikZ: Drawing an arc from an intersection to an intersectionDrawing rectilinear curves in Tikz, aka an Etch-a-Sketch drawingLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themHow to place nodes in an absolute coordinate system in tikzCommutative diagram with curve connecting between nodesTikz with standalone: pinning tikz coordinates to page cmDrawing a Decision Diagram with Tikz and layout manager