OMG hilarious: arXiv vs. snarXiv.
Fun indeed! Yah wanna prove, with (say) 20 guesses, that you can pick the real papers ... with (one-sided) confidence level P > 0.99?
Prove it: pick nâ¥16 out of 20 papers right (and I decline to give my score). :)
I settled in at above 60% (19/30)
I stopped at 4 out of 5. One of those was easy (the fake paper misspelled Schwartzschild's name), but some of the others were pure guesswork.
10/10, woohoo! There are a few giveaways. The guy who makes up the fake papers uses the words "orientifold" and "right" in titles way more than real physicists do.
If "dyslexia" is a condition that confuses left-versus-right, then what should we call the condition that confuses funny-versus-serious? `Cuz reading the "SnarXiv" gives me a bad case of it!
The abstracts of the "SnarXiv" ... and its equally intriguing mathematical counterpart (by the same authors) "The Real Theorem Generator" ... reminds me irresistibly of with first 17 pages of the Petkovsek-Wilf-Zeilberger classic text A=B (including the preface by Knuth).
`Cuz haven't Petkovsek-Wilf-Zeilberger/Knuth carried to completionâwithin hypergeometric combinatoricsâprecisely the program that the "SnarXiv" and the "Theorem Generator" envision carrying out more across broader domains of math and physics?
Isn't it now an everyday reality, that young mathematicians and physicists are embracing the nomenclature of engineering ... by talking about "proof technologies", for example? And conversely, aren't young engineers embracing the nomenclature of math and physics, by focusing increasingly on the key role that shared notions of "naturality" play in practical systems engineering?
This is a topic that Alice and Bob are starting to think about quite a bit.
Back in the early 1970s, I remember when computer experts would joke about the coming day when "the CPU breaks, and so you just throw the CPU away" (hilarious laughter follows) ... and yet this is exactly what happened.
So what should we call the all-to-human incapacity to take STEM-related humor seriously ... "dysjocsia", perhaps? from the Latin "jocus"?