On 10/28/05, Brown, Darin Darin.Brown@enmu.edu wrote:
Well, you raise some very interesting points. I know that research papers in math have a copyright attached to them...I have always assumed that this meant something along the lines of "don't photocopy this and sell it". (As if that's going to happen.) The copyright of math research papers always seemed bizarre to me -- mathematicians *WANT* their papers photocopied and distributed without permission!! Maybe not their textbooks or monographs, but certainly their research papers. It promotes their ideas. It gets people interested in their field and problems. It advances their careers. As far as researh papers are concerned, the entire copyright issue only exists because of publishing houses. We'd be perfectly content to do our own peer review, trade papers electronically, etc. And this is starting to be done.
All articles published by major publishers claim to be wholly copyrighted, but that doesn't make it so. An article in physics which prints one of Einstein's equations will still claim that the *entire article* is copyrighted, but that particular aspect of it will simply not be included as part of the overall copyright. Similarly, if equations are not copyrighted (again, they may be, I don't know), then they wouldn't apply. But anyway, we are splitting hairs about IP issues here.
To be honest, the only thing math people really care about with regard to research is attribution and rigour.
Of course. But that's in part because academic standards of credit and legal standards of credit are very different for the most part.
It's an issue that philosophers of math aren't agreed upon, let alone judges!!
Yes, but judges generally don't listen to philosophers (the legal realm generates its own implicit philosophical concepts, some of which are quite interesting). I think a judge would have a problem with a mathematician testifying that yes, his work was completely logical and worked from first principles, though he also wanted to count it as artistically creative. But I don't know for sure.
Because when something is in the literature, it has passed peer review and has been given the stamp of approval by qualified experts. All it means is, "Someone sent this paper to a human being(s), who read it, researched it, checked it, and proclaimed it good." Now, it's possible to interpret this as merely an "argument from authority"! After all, in a sense, *all* citations are just "arguments from authority"! They just say, "This person checked it, thought about it, verified it, and we should trust them." What is that, except an argument from authority?!? And that's all that goes on when I say, "suppose a proof is easily verifiable by any professional editor in the field at wikipedia". There's little difference between that and submitting something for peer review -- it's the same process.
The difference is that I am perfectly willing to trust a known and "certified" authority (i.e. a guy with a real job) than some anonymous guy on the internet who claims to know what they are talking about. Hence the dominance of printed sources from well-respected publishers over testimonies of any miscellaneous user. Obviously in some cases these two communities are actually made up of the same people, except in the "real world" there are many checks and verification steps that we don't (and won't) have on an open project like Wikipedia.
FF