Sure, I'm a mathematician, but what point are you making beyond a potential ad hominem?
I myself include code in my own papers when it's useful. As the author of this paper mentioned (and it's something I'm a bit embarassed I missed), the asymptotics of this new algorithm do not compete with the usual O(n^3) algorithm, so it's not clear to me that having Python code would benefit anyone. Of course you never know, though I think the underlying concepts in their formula are significantly more difficult to learn than the notation itself, so the code also wouldn't help very much with understanding the formula.
Anyway, given that you're saying I'm in an ivory tower, doesn't that give me some authority to explain why the choice to not include code has nothing to do with it being an "insult" to the community or it "spoiling" the paper with "disgustingly usable code"?
what point are you making beyond a potential ad hominem?
I guess I'm guilty of the exact same sin most math authors commit: I naively assumed that the readers of my post have the intellectual means to get to the obvious conclusion without crutches.
so it's not clear to me that having Python code would benefit anyone
Please read my answer (and thanks) to the author where he addresses my complaint and does indeed publish the code (top of thread).
TL;DR: there are many (I'd wager most) people who vastly prefer reading code to reading obtuse abstract math papers written using specialized math jargon.
There is huge value in publishing your findings as code:
. it can be *understood* by people who happen not to live in your ivory tower and might neither be able to parse the language, the symbols, the "what is considered trivial by the author and not worth mentioning in the paper". Code is clear, unambiguous, down to earth and leaves no stone unturned.
. code can be *verified* by a machine, which goes a long way to prove that your entire paper isn't a giant pile of BS.
You jumped to conclusions that the code wasn't worth publishing because it isn't practical/efficient etc... You entirely missed the point. Code explains ideas clearly. Math papers very rarely do.
Comments
Sure, I'm a mathematician, but what point are you making beyond a potential ad hominem?
I myself include code in my own papers when it's useful. As the author of this paper mentioned (and it's something I'm a bit embarassed I missed), the asymptotics of this new algorithm do not compete with the usual O(n^3) algorithm, so it's not clear to me that having Python code would benefit anyone. Of course you never know, though I think the underlying concepts in their formula are significantly more difficult to learn than the notation itself, so the code also wouldn't help very much with understanding the formula.
Anyway, given that you're saying I'm in an ivory tower, doesn't that give me some authority to explain why the choice to not include code has nothing to do with it being an "insult" to the community or it "spoiling" the paper with "disgustingly usable code"?
I guess I'm guilty of the exact same sin most math authors commit: I naively assumed that the readers of my post have the intellectual means to get to the obvious conclusion without crutches.
Please read my answer (and thanks) to the author where he addresses my complaint and does indeed publish the code (top of thread).
TL;DR: there are many (I'd wager most) people who vastly prefer reading code to reading obtuse abstract math papers written using specialized math jargon.
There is huge value in publishing your findings as code:
You jumped to conclusions that the code wasn't worth publishing because it isn't practical/efficient etc... You entirely missed the point. Code explains ideas clearly. Math papers very rarely do.