Teaching Learning

Researching Publishing

Learning

Researching

PublishingThe point is, the whole process is so well designed, there is no reason why anyone who can use LaTeX should do anything other than self-publish from now on.

“It seems to me that, at least in theory, a different model could work-anybody who had anything whatsoever to say about the problem could chip in.

“In other words, what you would not tend to do, at least if you wanted to keep within the spirit of things, is spend a month thinking hard about the problem and then come back and write ten pages about it. Rather, you would contribute ideas even if they were undeveloped and/or likely to be wrong.”

I would like to accept this paper as it deals with a fundamental problem, identifies its natural restricted versions and makes interesting progress. The paper however needs several modifications.

1. abstract, last para: `'run time' to `runtime'.2. pg 2, para 2, line 2: `Using the sieve' to `The sieve'.3. pg 3, para 4, line 4: You do not need `at most' with O-notation.4. next line: remove the extra `is'.5. 3rd line: remove the extra `that

Finally, the paper does not clearly say who the authors are! It does refer to a website detailing the Polymath project but, I think, a list of names who contributed to the work should be given somehow.

One change requested is to add a list of participants to the project. In analogy with what we did for Polymath1, I therefore started a “signup sheet” on the wiki for people to self-report their participation, contact information, and grant information for the project.

There is the usual problem of trying to decide who is a “main participant” of the project, and who is a “contributor” (though I think I can safely add Ernie, Harald, and myself as participants); as with Polymath1, I will leave it to each of you to self-report what level of participation you feel is appropriate.

The Journal of I Can Haz Tenure?