Weird citations or good citations?

[Blutkoete]

Hello!

We just had a discussion whether it would be weird to cite e.g. Newton, Leibnitz or other people from times long ago in an academical paper about neural networks. Like



First we calculate the derivative (Leibnitz 1684, Newton 1687) of the function.


or with Pythagoras maybe.

What do you think? Actually, I'd love to do it just one time, but I fear people might call me crazy afterwards.

Blutkoete

[rudihawk]

Hello!

We just had a discussion whether it would be weird to cite e.g. Newton, Leibnitz or other people from times long ago in an academical paper about neural networks. Like



or with Pythagoras maybe.

What do you think? Actually, I'd love to do it just one time, but I fear people might call me crazy afterwards.

Blutkoete

Do it, I think it would be awesome!

[el_koraco]

It's always cool when the old masters are cited in non-cheesy ways, like the Einstein infinity postulate.

[NovaAesa]

You don't need to cite something that is common knowledge for your readers. That being said, in all mathematics and computer science textbooks and journals I have read, the author of a specific theorem is usually named in brackets after the theorems name e.g. The Law of Quadratic Reciprocity (Gauss) or incorporated into the name e.g. The Mobius Inversion Theorem.


Btw, you're kidding yourself if you believe that Pythagoras was the original author of the so called Pythagorean Theorem :P

[Blutkoete]

You're right about Pythagoras, but it would be hard to cite him anyway as there is no paper (or papyrus) to cite. Actually it would be great if we had papers (or stones) for all the great discoveries of mankind (like On the art of making a fire by hitting two stones at each other [Uggiz et. al., 25000 BC]).

Of course you don't need a citation for things that are common knowledge, but were do you draw the line? Most things people like Gödel or Turing said are common knowledge among the people who read computer science papers, still they are referenced all the time.

But as I still like the idea of citing our forefathers, maybe I can find something not as common as derivatives to cite them for.

[jfreak_]

Technically it shouldn't be a problem except that you should hunt up the original research article. If you do this you could also cite the inventor of written language while writing the paper "On converting speech to permanent record" Anonymous et al , Proceedings of the Royal Caveman Society, 4000 BC

[3Miro]

Find a comprehensive Calculus book that has all the Theorems and such in it. Then cite the book.

The point of citation is so that if I am reading your paper I don't know this or that theorem, then I can find it and more information about it. A good textbook would have appropriate historical reference.

For derivative in particular (assuming it is classical derivative), then you don't even have to cite it. If you have a different kind of derivative and/or multiple kinds of derivatives, then make sure to distinguish between them accordingly.

[Simian Man]

It isn't done because everyone knows what those are and who came up with them. The point of citations is so that your readers can read more about things they may not be familliar with. I don't think it's especially cool to cite things like that, and could be construed as condescending.

[Paqman]

For derivative in particular (assuming it is classical derivative), then you don't even have to cite it.

That's kind of his point.

It would be good to do in a less-serious paper. A friend of mine co-wrote a paper a while back discussing whether an fMRI could effectively distinguish between brain activity caused by a stimulus applied to the buttocks or the elbow.

[3Miro]

That's kind of his point.

It would be good to do in a less-serious paper. A friend of mine co-wrote a paper a while back discussing whether an fMRI could effectively distinguish between brain activity caused by a stimulus applied to the buttocks or the elbow.

(Newton 16xx) wouldn't be a proper citation unless you have listed at the end an actual publication by him. As publication back then did not quite have the same meaning as it does now, this could be hard. Unless you can point to a book or something like that, it is absolutely useless.

[ssam]

i have a book "On the Shoulders of Giants: The Great Works of Physics and Astronomy" by Stephen Hawking. it contains the main works of newton (translated to english) and a few other giants. i am tempted to cite one of newtons theorems from principia in my thesis.

(you can also find principia online http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica#O nline_editions )

[DZ*]

The point of citation is so that if I am reading your paper I don't know this or that theorem, then I can find it and more information about it.

Citations are also important to living authors because various citation indices (e.g. h-index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index)) are counted in academic promotions and good citation rates increase chancess of finding a good job.

My best cited paper was cited ~600 times with the attribution, but also ~100 additional times without the attribution (just by referring to the method). And I'm not even dead ... I think.