Timeline for Who to cite for fundamental mathematical definitions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 29, 2017 at 15:53 | comment | added | Fábio Dias | @John but then you get in the subjective problem of where you draw the line between what is or isn't well known enough to be cited. Personally, I use a very high bar and cite basic concepts of the field (a textbook reference usually covers most of it anyway - assuming you have the space in the article, ofc). If the reader knows it already, it doesn't do any harm, otherwise, it is helpful... | |
| Jul 29, 2017 at 10:39 | comment | added | Yacine | I believe, it is a relative matter. In all fields, there are axioms, which do not have to be cited. The axiom in the field "A" might be not really known in the field "B". I think, there is no problem to skip citing fundamental axioms as long as they are used in their pure definitions. | |
| Jul 29, 2017 at 3:35 | history | answered | Fábio Dias | CC BY-SA 3.0 |