Euler’s papers would have been considered not rigorous today and would not have passed peer review
Based
>>17055699Yes, rigor alwayd is a social protocol because it cannot be defined formally, what's your point?
>>17055699Thats because jewish scientists invented this "rigorism" to block real creativity. Especially landau in math and pauli in physics.
>>17055699Euclid’s sandbox was essentially unpublishable in its original form.We call this progress.
>>17055699Euler would have written them differently had modern publishing standards and frameworks existed at the time, and consequently would have had zero problems getting his findings published.
>>17055699most of math papers are fixed through AI for 40 dolars + some of you guys are too slothful to type into latex and take ss and send them to AI hence ur argument is debunked.
>>17055699If Euler was alive today he would be mainstream and you faggots would celebrate some loser faggot who accomplished nothing in your endless pursuit of clout through contrarianism.
>>17055984>DEBUNKED
>>17056113Lol.
>>17055984>noooooo why did AI remove our gatekeeping functions
>>17055699Irrelevant. Nobody gives a shit about rigorous formalism and peer review when there is a path into practical applications and therefore monetization.
>>17055717Of course. Domesticated goys will suffer analysis paralysis when facing breakthroughs, while people free from such conditioning will be able to exploit such opportunities.
>>17055699The "airplane" of the Wright brothers wouldn't be certified by aviation authorities today.
>>17055699Newton's alchemy notes would have been considered pseudoscience in this day and age. Can you believe THAT?
>>17061056And yet the Boeing 737 MAX is.Ironic.
>>17061057Not on /sci/ they wouldn’t.@grok, how to turn Martian lead into earth gold and/or DOGEcoin?
>>17055699Euler was also psychotically extraverted to the point that he had like 13 children with the same wife and continually mailed out try-me letters in order to shit on people in other countries simply because shitting on the people in his own state and neighborhood wasn't profuse enough. Peer review had nothing to do with it.
>>17055699>peer reviewPeer-review is gay.Proofs:https://www.bitchute.com/video/zR38CtjD__ohttps://www.cremieux.xyz/p/sometimes-papers-contain-obvious?utm_source=publication-searchhttps://www.cremieux.xyz/p/beware-the-man-of-many-studieshttps://www.technotheoria.org/p/why-does-academia-suck?utm_source=publication-searchhttps://humanvarieties.org/2024/11/27/why-academic-papers-abstracts-should-not-be-trusted-and-why-academic-publishing-should-not-be-regulated/https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/reverse-publication-bias-a-collection?utm_source=publication-searchhttps://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/the-role-of-censorship-in-science?utm_source=publication-search
>>17061386>bitchute linkStopped reading there.
>>17064415go back to >>>/lit/now
>>17064415trvke>>17064418we will never go back to /lit/, /sci/ is a /lit/ board now and AI owns you mathsissy
Not a single penny 100% serious.
>>17064418based>>17064447if you hate science so much then fuck off retard roflmao
>>17061593>attack the "source" (weirdly, not even the actual source here) fallacyThe papers are all in the description, but you can cry about a website all you want.
anus
>>17064571If you love science, go on plebbit
>>17066822Are you an Indian call center employee?
>>17061073high t chad
/sci/ Standard Operating Procedure.Open catalogue. Scroll down to the lowest Frog poster threadBump it with some worthless commentRepeat.Do this daily.This message has been brought to you by "The Friends of the Frog"
>>17055699why do you say that op?
>>17068065Hello friend
