SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Physicists avoid highly mathematical work despite being trained in advanced mathematics, new research suggests. The study, published in the New Journal of Physics, shows that physicists pay less attention to theories that are crammed with mathematical details. This suggests there are real and widespread barriers to communicating mathematical work, and that this is not because of poor training in mathematical skills, or because there is a social stigma about doing well in mathematics.
Dr Tim Fawcett and Dr Andrew Higginson, from the University of Exeter, found, using statistical analysis of the number of citations to 2000 articles in a leading physics journal, that articles are less likely to be referenced by other physicists if they have lots of mathematical equations on each page. [...] Dr Higginson said: "We have already showed that biologists are put off by equations but we were surprised by these findings, as physicists are generally skilled in mathematics.
"This is an important issue because it shows there could be a disconnection between mathematical theory and experimental work. This presents a potentially enormous barrier to all kinds of scientific progress."
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-physicists-mathematics.html
[Abstract]: Statistical Analysis of the Effect of Equations on Citations
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 13 2016, @09:42PM
So using math in a math-heavy field is lazy. Man, there are a ton of lazy fucks in the field of pure mathematics then.
It can be actually. If I copy my math work directly from my notes into the computer with little to no explanation, that's going to be pretty lazy right there. The laziness here is not the using of math, it's not doing the work to make the math more understandable to the reader.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday November 14 2016, @06:53PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 14 2016, @11:51PM
Ah, and you can state, as fact, that this is the case with every paper that the study in question evaluated then?
No. But it would be a fact that your demand would be irrelevant to my earlier observation since I wasn't characterizing papers but rather a common and lazy technique for slamming out papers which just happens to result in high math content.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Tuesday November 15 2016, @02:27PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 15 2016, @03:48PM
OK, then you have experience in publishing scientific papers?
I even have experience in publishing scientific papers where I copied the math from my notes into the paper in said lazy way that I just described. In my defense, I was a lot younger then and didn't realize what a mess I was making or the enormous patience of my advisors. It takes a lot of learning and experience to write decent math IMHO.
Have anything to back up that argument?
Here's the abstract [projecteuclid.org] and paper [projecteuclid.org] in all their shining glory. Tell me I'm wrong. Even worse, a year earlier I had made up overheads of that work and presented those in public. That was even worse since I learned a bit about writing and presentation of math afterward.
And LaTex is a life saver here. I can't imagine how this paper would look written in Word, but it would be even uglier.