> I have attempted to read through the paper, and there are several places where it states that construction can be done, and provides evidence that the construction can be done, but never outright does the construction.
It then rapidly devolves into higher mathematics which the author later acknowledged with "Thanks. That does seem like a good objection".
Also, I agree with the 8yo comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5785787
> ArXiv has many "proofs" that P=NP and that P!=NP. ArXiv does not do any vetting of correctness (it is beyond their scope.) We don't need a HN submission for this and the title is inaccurate/clickbait.
My guess would be it stands for Peano Axioms or Peano Arithmetic, which is a formalized system of reasoning about natural numbers -- if I understand the first couple sentences of the Wikipedia article.
PA: Peano Arithmetic
EFA: Elementary Function Arithmetic
ZFC: Zermelo-Frankel set theoretic axioms plus the axiom of Choice
It's annoying to jargonify, paper or not, because it doesn't help reduce the cognitive load of the reader and it makes the paper less accessible.
Actually, jargon does reduce cognitive load; that's why all specialized communities have it to make fine distinctions that are relevant in the community more concisely and precisely than less specialized language does.
You're probably a software engineer. Are you going to write out REST (REpresentational State Transfer) in every design document you put up on your company wiki for your team that describes one, just in case a non software engineer wants to read it? Are you going to explain the concept? No, you're going to write for your audience, and stuff like will get their way.
If you want to read infra-disciplinary writing, you need to be willing to do the work to familiarize yourself with the concepts and terms of the discipline that you don't understand, instead of expecting everyone, always, to offer close-at-hand definitions just in case. That latter expectation is only reasonable for writing targeted at a general audience.
No, because that's not disseminated to a broader community. If it were, I'm going to link a standardized reference document that defines the terms, like they do in RFCs.
Edit: Actually, even with such an "internal" document, my preference would be to overexplain rather than underexplain, and define an acronym (or neologism I had learn myself recently) before using it. REST is a special case though, in that defining out the acronym doesn't actually help explain how people use it.
Have some humility.
We should stop naming maths after people.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms and https://math.stackexchange.com/a/213264.
On the lines of,
Aczel, Amir D. The Mystery of the Aleph: Mathematics, the Kabbalah, and the Search for Infinity (2001)