Hmm Im starting to think that the really interesting articles cant be recognized by high karma points but by the lack of tens of comments. (tho obviously HN is best for the comments!)
This is really interesting and nicely written article!
This is probably because the articles which are interesting people a) upvote and b) don't understand well enough to comment on.
For example, if we were given an article on protein folding, it might be very interesting - causing upvoting - but also difficult to comprehend for many of us - causing a lack of comments.
A nice heuristic. I think I'll try it a few times.
"I thought I would try an experiment of my own here. It goes like this: feel free to provide a review of my paper! I know this is not for everyone. Send it directly to me or comment here. I will take serious comments as seriously as those of the official reviewer and will incorporate changes into the final version of the paper before it is published."
I love that - crowdsourcing of peer review. Interesting experiment.
What I personally find most interesting about this article is the demonstration of purely human insight.
We're used to new techniques and new discoveries, but many of them seem obvious, just yet unimplemented. What the author does in the article, on the other hand, is just completely brilliant deductive logic.
From my logic studies ten years ago I recall that an argument is considered 'Valid' if true premises must lead to a true conclusion (ie, no gaps in the logic); to be 'Sound', however, it must be Valid and have true premises.
This seems Valid to me so far. I guess the peer review (formal and crowd-sourced) will test for Soundness.
