I was obviously trying to be too cute; I'm tired of being told "you have to believe me because 400 of my closest friends have referenced my papers" aka "proof by # of Twitter followers" when my own lying eyes (or my own algebraic calculations) tell me something quite different. An epidemiologist who doesn't understand "fat tailed" distributions is a contradiction in terms, since almost no distribution in epidemiology has a thin tail. So it may be time for these people to get better educated, retire, or at least shut up. Their misunderstandings are wasting months of billions of people's lives and trillions of dollars. At the risk of mixing metaphors, I'd like to drive Dr. John Snow's wooden pump handle through the heart of the Kermack-Mckendrick 'R0' differential equation models. At 09:47 AM 5/22/2020, Brad Klee wrote:
H.B.: Perhaps those on this list will agree that proofs should end with 'QED', not 'PhD'.
Me: The current PhD system does not inspire too much confidence, but I'm not sure how much better it is to trade 'PhD' for 'QED', especially in messy circumstances. Anyways most people who write QED have a PhD, so what are you really saying? We need experts with training in formal mathematics?
The other issue is that QED is a Latin abbreviation, so it is very exclusive to elite westerners. Someone like Madhava would never think of ending an idea-in-verse with QED. Is this a reason for taking away credit from him? Elite westerners unequivocally answer yes. Is that answer fair?