- i find a gap in one of my proofs, which is either a missing hypothesis or a lemma that i need. it takes half or a whole day to patch the proof and look for other places where i might have made the same mistake.
- i find that the result extends slightly. it takes quarter or half a day to deliberate if it's worth changing. if i change it, the same compatibility issues persist. i think i'll call this LaTeX-laziness:
does it come free, or do i have to form a new definition or ..i hope not, but.. a new subsection in order to formulate it?
what else do i have to change?
if there's a lot to change, then is the new result really that interesting?!?
on a lighter note, yesterday i was working with partitions of metric measure spaces. i wanted to shift the graph of a function f, where the shift depended on the part of the partition. i ended up calling the infimum of f over the kth set by ck and looking at the difference.
i then left to fetch a cup of coffee. it was only when i came back that i noticed what the paper looked like.
huh.
i had written f-ck all over the place.
4 comments:
Leave it that way! At least for the thesis. The committee will like it.
the wise Metzger once told me that math and thesis/article writing are a process and at some point you just need to lop it off and finish it. he said that there will always be something else to add, more to do, more to prove, but the process needs to end sometime, otherwise, you will never leave.
and at some point you just need to lop it off and finish it.
words of wisdom, those. for now, i'm just trying to fill all the gaps and have something whole to present to the committee.
thanks for the advice!
to L: too late. i already changed it, and the c_k would just be excessive notation at this point.
to Anon: sound advice. i've just taken it now.
Post a Comment