>>10675526>Bruh how do you know if your proof is (1) true and (2) interesting.WIthot going into what it means to "know" something, here is my QC procedure:
1. Consider if the proof makes sense intuitively.
2. Look at the properties of the proof and try to make it break. Either by breaking the whole proposition, or any single line in the proof. Usually, I do this by testing strange edge cases that marginally fit my assumptions, but that may introduce problems.
3. Send it to your co-authors, close collaborators, [or PhD supervisor] for checking
4. Try to publish
Q2 is the million-dollar question. Either you go for a hot topic, or an understudied topic where you can make a greater contribution. Look at what problems transfer to other fields or subdisciplines.
>>10675556Seems like you're a kid who shouldn't try to publish anything yet. Don't think about it until the end of your bachelor's at the earliest.
