Talk:2268: Further Research is Needed
First! —18.104.22.168 14:56, February 14, 2020
- Please sign your comments. That's right, Jacky720 just signed this (talk | contribs) 23:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I got two things to say:
- What the heck is the "Woodward Hoffman textbook on organic chemistry"? I can't find it anywhere online.
- I think it's a reference to Conservation of Orbital Symmetry (1971)], whose chapter "Violations" starts with "There are none!" Unfortunately, the "Conclusions" chapter doesn't fully fit the criteria. 22.214.171.124 17:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- In the event of an unsuccessful Action 10-Israfil-B, no further
actionresearch will be necessary.
Paper title: "Constructive proof of P=NP". Conclusion: "No further research is needed" ... because anyone who read this paper can get so rich they won't need to do any research for rest of life, spent on nice tropical island. -- Hkmaly (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- ... other paper with similar property: "Experimental disapproval of second thermodynamic law" -- Hkmaly (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Can someone make a category called "Research" or "Research Papers"? Other comics with this topic include: 2012: Thorough Analysis, 2025: Peer Review, 2215: Faculty:Student Ratio, 1594: Human Subjects and 1574: Trouble for Science. 126.96.36.199 00:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Is easy. -- Hkmaly (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Here is a list of a bunch of papers that could have done this (but for some it might not have been known at the time): https://mathoverflow.net/questions/347540/what-are-examples-of-collections-of-papers-which-close-a-field Fabian42 (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Regarding topics that might reach a conclusion: The first subset that comes to mind is religious matters (e.g. "God works in mysterious ways -- let's not think about this too much.") The second subset that comes to mind is game theory regarding games that have been solved. (e.g. there's not much left to be said about tic-tac-toe.)
- Further research is needed to see why humans continue to play tic-tac-toe when it's so widely known how to avoid losing. And into how anyone ever wins. And why on earth Google has an online version, with 3 different difficulty levels. Seriously though, there is actual research into how to have the best chance of beating a player who isn't very good (meaning someone who is bad enough to lose occasionally), which involves not only game theory, but also psychology about what mistakes an opponent is most likely to make. Finally, there are newer, more complex, variants, such as playing on a 4x4 grid or in 3D, and new ones can always be developed so that the field is never closed.188.8.131.52 00:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Leaving this explanation "incomplete" would be perfectly meta. Please don't ever remove that incomplete tag 184.108.40.206 16:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)