3

Suppose I am improving a bound in a problem in "some cases" by using the extra information available in that problem which was unused in the earlier bounds for that problem. However, in general, I am not able to show that my bound is better than the earlier bound. Can this result be considered to be a reasonable result?

closed as off-topic by Buffy, scaaahu, corey979, Brian Borchers, Buzz Jan 5 at 17:09

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • this question is off topic here as it relates to a specific research problem. Try the math forum – Buffy Jan 5 at 12:12
  • 1
    There is no specific problem written out here, as far as I notice. – Tommi Brander Jan 5 at 13:07
  • @TommiBrander Based on your profile, your research interests include PDE. This question may sound non-specific to you. But, can you imagine an English Literature professor would be able to answer the question? – scaaahu Jan 6 at 6:47
  • 1
    @scaaahu No, presumably an professor in a field distant from maths could not answer the question. But there are many other such questions on the website. This is not a question about the content of research (how do I prove this or that bound). This is a question about academic writing and publishing. Maybe there is a meta-thread against this question, but at least the help center contains nothing about this question being off-topic. – Tommi Brander Jan 6 at 8:12
  • 1
    I agree with @TommiBrander - asking whether improving a bound is generally publishable is not about a specific research problem. Actually, such a question would be applicable to some maths-related fields too. Moreover, we seem to allow analogous questions about algorithms, which a literature professor probably wouldn't be able to answer either. – Anyon Jan 6 at 17:18
4

The result might or might not be reasonable. The following would speak for it being interesting:

  1. The special case is interesting. A good argument for this is that others have looked into it or that it has applications or other relevance in other fields of science or mathematics.

  2. The method of proof is new.

But, in general, the only way to know is to write it down, talk about it and submit it to a journal and see what the response is.

When writing the result down, you will want to emphasize the relevance of the result and refer to similar results, applications and the new features in the proof.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.