Question about the authorship of mathematical equation
Recently, I felt thrilled because I was finally (after few months of non-stop work) able to mathematically prove the mathematical (physical) transformation which I use to prove some new laws of physics. Everything adds up so nicely using this transformation and everything seems logical.
To much of my disappointment, I have learned that in 1950's two papers are written where exactly the same mathematical transformation appears. However, in neither of these two papers this mathematical transformation was not proven and it was only guessed from physical laws. Probably because of this lack of proof, both papers were forgotten, otherwise I suppose these papers would be breakthrough papers. These two researchers were not only researchers trying to find the correct form of this transform and in last century there is at least dozen of papers trying to find this transform (although not explicitly stated).
Now, I've been able to mathematically prove this transform and I am writing the paper about some new physical laws emerging from this transform. My question is should I mention these papers at all? Since no one before (without fake modesty) was able to prove it and the rest of the papers were on this track (but not explicitly stated) I was thinking about not mentioning these papers at all. Otherwise I would have to explain what these researchers did and its rather irrelevant for my paper (sole discussion about this would represent another paper). What do you people think about this? I would like to hear your opinions, and of course, the constructive criticism from you
publications ethics
asked 2 days ago
gallieo1985gallieo1985
8914
New contributor
gallieo1985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
|
show 3 more comments
Recently, I felt thrilled because I was finally (after few months of non-stop work) able to mathematically prove the mathematical (physical) transformation which I use to prove some new laws of physics. Everything adds up so nicely using this transformation and everything seems logical.
To much of my disappointment, I have learned that in 1950's two papers are written where exactly the same mathematical transformation appears. However, in neither of these two papers this mathematical transformation was not proven and it was only guessed from physical laws. Probably because of this lack of proof, both papers were forgotten, otherwise I suppose these papers would be breakthrough papers. These two researchers were not only researchers trying to find the correct form of this transform and in last century there is at least dozen of papers trying to find this transform (although not explicitly stated).
Now, I've been able to mathematically prove this transform and I am writing the paper about some new physical laws emerging from this transform. My question is should I mention these papers at all? Since no one before (without fake modesty) was able to prove it and the rest of the papers were on this track (but not explicitly stated) I was thinking about not mentioning these papers at all. Otherwise I would have to explain what these researchers did and its rather irrelevant for my paper (sole discussion about this would represent another paper). What do you people think about this? I would like to hear your opinions, and of course, the constructive criticism from you
publications ethics
asked 2 days ago
gallieo1985gallieo1985
8914
New contributor
gallieo1985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
41
Yes you should reference them. You can say they conjectured the same transformation formula.
– Kimball
2 days ago
19
You should decide how much you want to say about their work based on how much it would contribute to the narrative you want to tell. A single sentence could be perfectly fine. That said, don't belittle their works (just be factual: they did not provide proofs) and don't speculate (e.g. on the reason why it didn't revolutionalize the field).
– Kimball
2 days ago
14
As a general rule: When in doubt, cite it.
– user76284
2 days ago
1
gallileo skipping that is not proper to the earlier researcher. It's also not INTERESTING because you are leaving part of the history out. If, while presenting the history, you can give yourself a little credit (after all it was kind of a lost idea that you rediscovered), I would do that. [Do it subtley though.]
– guest
2 days ago
7
You have an opportunity to validate another scientists hard work and contributions, and you don't want to? You would want future generations to treat your work better than that.
– Issel
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
Recently, I felt thrilled because I was finally (after few months of non-stop work) able to mathematically prove the mathematical (physical) transformation which I use to prove some new laws of physics. Everything adds up so nicely using this transformation and everything seems logical.
To much of my disappointment, I have learned that in 1950's two papers are written where exactly the same mathematical transformation appears. However, in neither of these two papers this mathematical transformation was not proven and it was only guessed from physical laws. Probably because of this lack of proof, both papers were forgotten, otherwise I suppose these papers would be breakthrough papers. These two researchers were not only researchers trying to find the correct form of this transform and in last century there is at least dozen of papers trying to find this transform (although not explicitly stated).
Now, I've been able to mathematically prove this transform and I am writing the paper about some new physical laws emerging from this transform. My question is should I mention these papers at all? Since no one before (without fake modesty) was able to prove it and the rest of the papers were on this track (but not explicitly stated) I was thinking about not mentioning these papers at all. Otherwise I would have to explain what these researchers did and its rather irrelevant for my paper (sole discussion about this would represent another paper). What do you people think about this? I would like to hear your opinions, and of course, the constructive criticism from you
publications ethics
asked 2 days ago
gallieo1985gallieo1985
8914
New contributor
gallieo1985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Recently, I felt thrilled because I was finally (after few months of non-stop work) able to mathematically prove the mathematical (physical) transformation which I use to prove some new laws of physics. Everything adds up so nicely using this transformation and everything seems logical.
To much of my disappointment, I have learned that in 1950's two papers are written where exactly the same mathematical transformation appears. However, in neither of these two papers this mathematical transformation was not proven and it was only guessed from physical laws. Probably because of this lack of proof, both papers were forgotten, otherwise I suppose these papers would be breakthrough papers. These two researchers were not only researchers trying to find the correct form of this transform and in last century there is at least dozen of papers trying to find this transform (although not explicitly stated).
Now, I've been able to mathematically prove this transform and I am writing the paper about some new physical laws emerging from this transform. My question is should I mention these papers at all? Since no one before (without fake modesty) was able to prove it and the rest of the papers were on this track (but not explicitly stated) I was thinking about not mentioning these papers at all. Otherwise I would have to explain what these researchers did and its rather irrelevant for my paper (sole discussion about this would represent another paper). What do you people think about this? I would like to hear your opinions, and of course, the constructive criticism from you
publications ethics
publications ethics
asked 2 days ago
gallieo1985gallieo1985
8914
New contributor
gallieo1985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 days ago
gallieo1985gallieo1985
8914
New contributor
gallieo1985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 days ago
gallieo1985gallieo1985
8914
New contributor
gallieo1985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 days ago
gallieo1985gallieo1985
8914
asked 2 days ago
gallieo1985gallieo1985
8914
8914
New contributor
gallieo1985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
gallieo1985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
gallieo1985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
41
Yes you should reference them. You can say they conjectured the same transformation formula.
– Kimball
2 days ago
19
You should decide how much you want to say about their work based on how much it would contribute to the narrative you want to tell. A single sentence could be perfectly fine. That said, don't belittle their works (just be factual: they did not provide proofs) and don't speculate (e.g. on the reason why it didn't revolutionalize the field).
– Kimball
2 days ago
14
As a general rule: When in doubt, cite it.
– user76284
2 days ago
1
gallileo skipping that is not proper to the earlier researcher. It's also not INTERESTING because you are leaving part of the history out. If, while presenting the history, you can give yourself a little credit (after all it was kind of a lost idea that you rediscovered), I would do that. [Do it subtley though.]
– guest
2 days ago
7
You have an opportunity to validate another scientists hard work and contributions, and you don't want to? You would want future generations to treat your work better than that.
– Issel
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
41
Yes you should reference them. You can say they conjectured the same transformation formula.
– Kimball
2 days ago
19
You should decide how much you want to say about their work based on how much it would contribute to the narrative you want to tell. A single sentence could be perfectly fine. That said, don't belittle their works (just be factual: they did not provide proofs) and don't speculate (e.g. on the reason why it didn't revolutionalize the field).
– Kimball
2 days ago
14
As a general rule: When in doubt, cite it.
– user76284
2 days ago
1
gallileo skipping that is not proper to the earlier researcher. It's also not INTERESTING because you are leaving part of the history out. If, while presenting the history, you can give yourself a little credit (after all it was kind of a lost idea that you rediscovered), I would do that. [Do it subtley though.]
– guest
2 days ago
7
You have an opportunity to validate another scientists hard work and contributions, and you don't want to? You would want future generations to treat your work better than that.
– Issel
2 days ago
41
41
Yes you should reference them. You can say they conjectured the same transformation formula.
– Kimball
2 days ago
Yes you should reference them. You can say they conjectured the same transformation formula.
– Kimball
2 days ago
19
19
You should decide how much you want to say about their work based on how much it would contribute to the narrative you want to tell. A single sentence could be perfectly fine. That said, don't belittle their works (just be factual: they did not provide proofs) and don't speculate (e.g. on the reason why it didn't revolutionalize the field).
– Kimball
2 days ago
You should decide how much you want to say about their work based on how much it would contribute to the narrative you want to tell. A single sentence could be perfectly fine. That said, don't belittle their works (just be factual: they did not provide proofs) and don't speculate (e.g. on the reason why it didn't revolutionalize the field).
– Kimball
2 days ago
14
14
As a general rule: When in doubt, cite it.
– user76284
2 days ago
As a general rule: When in doubt, cite it.
– user76284
2 days ago
1
1
gallileo skipping that is not proper to the earlier researcher. It's also not INTERESTING because you are leaving part of the history out. If, while presenting the history, you can give yourself a little credit (after all it was kind of a lost idea that you rediscovered), I would do that. [Do it subtley though.]
– guest
2 days ago
gallileo skipping that is not proper to the earlier researcher. It's also not INTERESTING because you are leaving part of the history out. If, while presenting the history, you can give yourself a little credit (after all it was kind of a lost idea that you rediscovered), I would do that. [Do it subtley though.]
– guest
2 days ago
7
7
You have an opportunity to validate another scientists hard work and contributions, and you don't want to? You would want future generations to treat your work better than that.
– Issel
2 days ago
You have an opportunity to validate another scientists hard work and contributions, and you don't want to? You would want future generations to treat your work better than that.
– Issel
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
If something has appeared, pretty much in any form, you need to cite it. If you don't you will always be open to a charge of plagiarism.
I'll note that the proof is more important, in the grand scheme of mathematics, than the statement of it, so you don't lose anything by citing past work.
Authorship is different from "ownership". You can't own mathematics, but you can copyright your own expression of it (or anything, basically).
But if you don't cite it and someone later asks "why didn't he/she know about this" then it is a negative for you. Always cite your predecessors. Celebrate their work as well as your own advances.
Some of the intervening work has now been put on a firmer ground by your work, but that will only be obvious if you make the connection.
answered 2 days ago
BuffyBuffy
41.3k9134214
5
Thank you very much for your elaborate answer, I will be writing about the history of this equation. You helped resolving my dilemma;)
– gallieo1985
2 days ago
You have to cite it. If you can (gracefully) mention that you found the effect before seeing the papers, this would be nice to yourself. I'm not sure exactly how, but I would give it some shot: "After deriving this theoretical result, we became aware of earlier experimental work that made these conjectures but did not prove the effects or develop the implications." Be careful about being too personal, but I would be motivated to give yourself some credit.
– guest
2 days ago
7
@guest, what you suggest might be appropriate in a memoir, but not in a scientific/mathematical paper. Don't try to make it about you. The result and its proof stands on its own. Your proof is all the credit that you need.
– Buffy
2 days ago
8
@guest, sorry. No. Do mathematics. Leave it at that. There is no reason to make yourself look foolish in a math paper.
– Buffy
2 days ago
6
@guest, please stop digging. "get away with something"???? Why don't you think mathematics itself is enough. Primp and preen??? Please.
– Buffy
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
gallieo1985 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f123443%2fquestion-about-the-authorship-of-mathematical-equation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
If something has appeared, pretty much in any form, you need to cite it. If you don't you will always be open to a charge of plagiarism.
I'll note that the proof is more important, in the grand scheme of mathematics, than the statement of it, so you don't lose anything by citing past work.
Authorship is different from "ownership". You can't own mathematics, but you can copyright your own expression of it (or anything, basically).
But if you don't cite it and someone later asks "why didn't he/she know about this" then it is a negative for you. Always cite your predecessors. Celebrate their work as well as your own advances.
Some of the intervening work has now been put on a firmer ground by your work, but that will only be obvious if you make the connection.
answered 2 days ago
BuffyBuffy
41.3k9134214
5
Thank you very much for your elaborate answer, I will be writing about the history of this equation. You helped resolving my dilemma;)
– gallieo1985
2 days ago
You have to cite it. If you can (gracefully) mention that you found the effect before seeing the papers, this would be nice to yourself. I'm not sure exactly how, but I would give it some shot: "After deriving this theoretical result, we became aware of earlier experimental work that made these conjectures but did not prove the effects or develop the implications." Be careful about being too personal, but I would be motivated to give yourself some credit.
– guest
2 days ago
7
@guest, what you suggest might be appropriate in a memoir, but not in a scientific/mathematical paper. Don't try to make it about you. The result and its proof stands on its own. Your proof is all the credit that you need.
– Buffy
2 days ago
8
@guest, sorry. No. Do mathematics. Leave it at that. There is no reason to make yourself look foolish in a math paper.
– Buffy
2 days ago
6
@guest, please stop digging. "get away with something"???? Why don't you think mathematics itself is enough. Primp and preen??? Please.
– Buffy
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
If something has appeared, pretty much in any form, you need to cite it. If you don't you will always be open to a charge of plagiarism.
I'll note that the proof is more important, in the grand scheme of mathematics, than the statement of it, so you don't lose anything by citing past work.
Authorship is different from "ownership". You can't own mathematics, but you can copyright your own expression of it (or anything, basically).
But if you don't cite it and someone later asks "why didn't he/she know about this" then it is a negative for you. Always cite your predecessors. Celebrate their work as well as your own advances.
Some of the intervening work has now been put on a firmer ground by your work, but that will only be obvious if you make the connection.
answered 2 days ago
BuffyBuffy
41.3k9134214
5
Thank you very much for your elaborate answer, I will be writing about the history of this equation. You helped resolving my dilemma;)
– gallieo1985
2 days ago
You have to cite it. If you can (gracefully) mention that you found the effect before seeing the papers, this would be nice to yourself. I'm not sure exactly how, but I would give it some shot: "After deriving this theoretical result, we became aware of earlier experimental work that made these conjectures but did not prove the effects or develop the implications." Be careful about being too personal, but I would be motivated to give yourself some credit.
– guest
2 days ago
7
@guest, what you suggest might be appropriate in a memoir, but not in a scientific/mathematical paper. Don't try to make it about you. The result and its proof stands on its own. Your proof is all the credit that you need.
– Buffy
2 days ago
8
@guest, sorry. No. Do mathematics. Leave it at that. There is no reason to make yourself look foolish in a math paper.
– Buffy
2 days ago
6
@guest, please stop digging. "get away with something"???? Why don't you think mathematics itself is enough. Primp and preen??? Please.
– Buffy
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
If something has appeared, pretty much in any form, you need to cite it. If you don't you will always be open to a charge of plagiarism.
I'll note that the proof is more important, in the grand scheme of mathematics, than the statement of it, so you don't lose anything by citing past work.
Authorship is different from "ownership". You can't own mathematics, but you can copyright your own expression of it (or anything, basically).
But if you don't cite it and someone later asks "why didn't he/she know about this" then it is a negative for you. Always cite your predecessors. Celebrate their work as well as your own advances.
Some of the intervening work has now been put on a firmer ground by your work, but that will only be obvious if you make the connection.
answered 2 days ago
BuffyBuffy
41.3k9134214
If something has appeared, pretty much in any form, you need to cite it. If you don't you will always be open to a charge of plagiarism.
I'll note that the proof is more important, in the grand scheme of mathematics, than the statement of it, so you don't lose anything by citing past work.
Authorship is different from "ownership". You can't own mathematics, but you can copyright your own expression of it (or anything, basically).
But if you don't cite it and someone later asks "why didn't he/she know about this" then it is a negative for you. Always cite your predecessors. Celebrate their work as well as your own advances.
Some of the intervening work has now been put on a firmer ground by your work, but that will only be obvious if you make the connection.
answered 2 days ago
BuffyBuffy
41.3k9134214
answered 2 days ago
BuffyBuffy
41.3k9134214
answered 2 days ago
BuffyBuffy
41.3k9134214
answered 2 days ago
BuffyBuffy
41.3k9134214
41.3k9134214
5
Thank you very much for your elaborate answer, I will be writing about the history of this equation. You helped resolving my dilemma;)
– gallieo1985
2 days ago
You have to cite it. If you can (gracefully) mention that you found the effect before seeing the papers, this would be nice to yourself. I'm not sure exactly how, but I would give it some shot: "After deriving this theoretical result, we became aware of earlier experimental work that made these conjectures but did not prove the effects or develop the implications." Be careful about being too personal, but I would be motivated to give yourself some credit.
– guest
2 days ago
7
@guest, what you suggest might be appropriate in a memoir, but not in a scientific/mathematical paper. Don't try to make it about you. The result and its proof stands on its own. Your proof is all the credit that you need.
– Buffy
2 days ago
8
@guest, sorry. No. Do mathematics. Leave it at that. There is no reason to make yourself look foolish in a math paper.
– Buffy
2 days ago
6
@guest, please stop digging. "get away with something"???? Why don't you think mathematics itself is enough. Primp and preen??? Please.
– Buffy
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
5
Thank you very much for your elaborate answer, I will be writing about the history of this equation. You helped resolving my dilemma;)
– gallieo1985
2 days ago
You have to cite it. If you can (gracefully) mention that you found the effect before seeing the papers, this would be nice to yourself. I'm not sure exactly how, but I would give it some shot: "After deriving this theoretical result, we became aware of earlier experimental work that made these conjectures but did not prove the effects or develop the implications." Be careful about being too personal, but I would be motivated to give yourself some credit.
– guest
2 days ago
7
@guest, what you suggest might be appropriate in a memoir, but not in a scientific/mathematical paper. Don't try to make it about you. The result and its proof stands on its own. Your proof is all the credit that you need.
– Buffy
2 days ago
8
@guest, sorry. No. Do mathematics. Leave it at that. There is no reason to make yourself look foolish in a math paper.
– Buffy
2 days ago
6
@guest, please stop digging. "get away with something"???? Why don't you think mathematics itself is enough. Primp and preen??? Please.
– Buffy
2 days ago
5
5
Thank you very much for your elaborate answer, I will be writing about the history of this equation. You helped resolving my dilemma;)
– gallieo1985
2 days ago
Thank you very much for your elaborate answer, I will be writing about the history of this equation. You helped resolving my dilemma;)
– gallieo1985
2 days ago
You have to cite it. If you can (gracefully) mention that you found the effect before seeing the papers, this would be nice to yourself. I'm not sure exactly how, but I would give it some shot: "After deriving this theoretical result, we became aware of earlier experimental work that made these conjectures but did not prove the effects or develop the implications." Be careful about being too personal, but I would be motivated to give yourself some credit.
– guest
2 days ago
You have to cite it. If you can (gracefully) mention that you found the effect before seeing the papers, this would be nice to yourself. I'm not sure exactly how, but I would give it some shot: "After deriving this theoretical result, we became aware of earlier experimental work that made these conjectures but did not prove the effects or develop the implications." Be careful about being too personal, but I would be motivated to give yourself some credit.
– guest
2 days ago
7
7
@guest, what you suggest might be appropriate in a memoir, but not in a scientific/mathematical paper. Don't try to make it about you. The result and its proof stands on its own. Your proof is all the credit that you need.
– Buffy
2 days ago
@guest, what you suggest might be appropriate in a memoir, but not in a scientific/mathematical paper. Don't try to make it about you. The result and its proof stands on its own. Your proof is all the credit that you need.
– Buffy
2 days ago
8
8
@guest, sorry. No. Do mathematics. Leave it at that. There is no reason to make yourself look foolish in a math paper.
– Buffy
2 days ago
@guest, sorry. No. Do mathematics. Leave it at that. There is no reason to make yourself look foolish in a math paper.
– Buffy
2 days ago
6
6
@guest, please stop digging. "get away with something"???? Why don't you think mathematics itself is enough. Primp and preen??? Please.
– Buffy
2 days ago
@guest, please stop digging. "get away with something"???? Why don't you think mathematics itself is enough. Primp and preen??? Please.
– Buffy
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
gallieo1985 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
gallieo1985 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
gallieo1985 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
gallieo1985 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f123443%2fquestion-about-the-authorship-of-mathematical-equation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
41
Yes you should reference them. You can say they conjectured the same transformation formula.
– Kimball
2 days ago
19
You should decide how much you want to say about their work based on how much it would contribute to the narrative you want to tell. A single sentence could be perfectly fine. That said, don't belittle their works (just be factual: they did not provide proofs) and don't speculate (e.g. on the reason why it didn't revolutionalize the field).
– Kimball
2 days ago
14
As a general rule: When in doubt, cite it.
– user76284
2 days ago
1
gallileo skipping that is not proper to the earlier researcher. It's also not INTERESTING because you are leaving part of the history out. If, while presenting the history, you can give yourself a little credit (after all it was kind of a lost idea that you rediscovered), I would do that. [Do it subtley though.]
– guest
2 days ago
7
You have an opportunity to validate another scientists hard work and contributions, and you don't want to? You would want future generations to treat your work better than that.
– Issel
2 days ago