# Maximize the credit vs. easy proof for big conjecture

I have a similar situation as in this question. I can prove a big conjecture by combining results from literature.

However, the difference is I want to maximize my credit. I tried to come up with a different proof. I have come up with a slightly different proof, but the proof is longer and it seems it has no new insight or new techniques. If I want to maximize my credit, should I just publish the easy proof, or the longer proof, or both on the same manuscript?

• Could you clarify what precisely you mean by 'maximiz[ing] [your] credit'? Commented Mar 17, 2023 at 18:50
• "I can prove a big conjecture by combining results from literature." Are you sure that both your overarching argument and all referenced results are correct and fit together? Often one finds such proofs only to figure out a day (or year) later that he missed some subtleties that ruin the argument completely. So I would start with checking everything. As to "maximizing credit", just "take it easy" and "memento mori". People are quite often not idiots and can see what exactly has been done no matter in what form you choose to present it. So maximize the clarity instead. :-) Commented Mar 17, 2023 at 19:17
• This is not the first time you have made claims to have solved open problems, and I would advise you to follow @fedja's advice about being your own sceptic. Correctness is more important than fame, if you are trying to get started as a researcher. Commented Mar 17, 2023 at 21:58
• "I want to maximize my credit." Or equivalently, you want to minimize the credit of the other researchers whose work you are relying on. If you put it that way, it doesn't sound so great, does it? And if people get wise to this, it won't exactly leave a good impression. Commented Mar 17, 2023 at 23:29