How to modify a final draft to reflect that a conjecture in its preprint was refuted?











up vote
19
down vote

favorite












I am currently in the process of trying to publish a mathematics paper. A draft of this paper had been posted on arxiv, which contained an interesting conjecture.



In the intervening time, this conjecture has been refuted by another group of authors. I am not sure how I should edit my paper to reflect this.



One option that is out of the question is to simply delete the conjecture from the paper. The problem with this is that the latter paper has cited this conjecture as its motivation. If I removed the conjecture, I would be pulling the legs out from the subsequent paper.



What I am leaning toward is to state something along the lines of "In an earlier draft, we had made the following conjecture:" and then include some discussion and citations about how the conjecture has subsequently been refuted.



Note that most of my paper is unaffected by this refutation, and in fact I still believe that the conjecture could hold for the special case I need



Is there a better way of handling this situation?






publications mathematics preprint







share|improve this question
























  • AFAIK, arxiv stores every version as separate paper. So your original work is more or less cast in stone and cited already, you can only follow-up
    – aaaaaa
    8 hours ago















up vote
19
down vote

favorite












I am currently in the process of trying to publish a mathematics paper. A draft of this paper had been posted on arxiv, which contained an interesting conjecture.



In the intervening time, this conjecture has been refuted by another group of authors. I am not sure how I should edit my paper to reflect this.



One option that is out of the question is to simply delete the conjecture from the paper. The problem with this is that the latter paper has cited this conjecture as its motivation. If I removed the conjecture, I would be pulling the legs out from the subsequent paper.



What I am leaning toward is to state something along the lines of "In an earlier draft, we had made the following conjecture:" and then include some discussion and citations about how the conjecture has subsequently been refuted.



Note that most of my paper is unaffected by this refutation, and in fact I still believe that the conjecture could hold for the special case I need



Is there a better way of handling this situation?






publications mathematics preprint







share|improve this question
























  • AFAIK, arxiv stores every version as separate paper. So your original work is more or less cast in stone and cited already, you can only follow-up
    – aaaaaa
    8 hours ago













up vote
19
down vote

favorite









up vote
19
down vote

favorite











I am currently in the process of trying to publish a mathematics paper. A draft of this paper had been posted on arxiv, which contained an interesting conjecture.



In the intervening time, this conjecture has been refuted by another group of authors. I am not sure how I should edit my paper to reflect this.



One option that is out of the question is to simply delete the conjecture from the paper. The problem with this is that the latter paper has cited this conjecture as its motivation. If I removed the conjecture, I would be pulling the legs out from the subsequent paper.



What I am leaning toward is to state something along the lines of "In an earlier draft, we had made the following conjecture:" and then include some discussion and citations about how the conjecture has subsequently been refuted.



Note that most of my paper is unaffected by this refutation, and in fact I still believe that the conjecture could hold for the special case I need



Is there a better way of handling this situation?






publications mathematics preprint







share|improve this question















I am currently in the process of trying to publish a mathematics paper. A draft of this paper had been posted on arxiv, which contained an interesting conjecture.



In the intervening time, this conjecture has been refuted by another group of authors. I am not sure how I should edit my paper to reflect this.



One option that is out of the question is to simply delete the conjecture from the paper. The problem with this is that the latter paper has cited this conjecture as its motivation. If I removed the conjecture, I would be pulling the legs out from the subsequent paper.



What I am leaning toward is to state something along the lines of "In an earlier draft, we had made the following conjecture:" and then include some discussion and citations about how the conjecture has subsequently been refuted.



Note that most of my paper is unaffected by this refutation, and in fact I still believe that the conjecture could hold for the special case I need



Is there a better way of handling this situation?






publications mathematics preprint




publications mathematics preprint






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









Nat

5,25531338




5,25531338










asked 15 hours ago









David Harris

31817




31817












  • AFAIK, arxiv stores every version as separate paper. So your original work is more or less cast in stone and cited already, you can only follow-up
    – aaaaaa
    8 hours ago


















  • AFAIK, arxiv stores every version as separate paper. So your original work is more or less cast in stone and cited already, you can only follow-up
    – aaaaaa
    8 hours ago
















AFAIK, arxiv stores every version as separate paper. So your original work is more or less cast in stone and cited already, you can only follow-up
– aaaaaa
8 hours ago




AFAIK, arxiv stores every version as separate paper. So your original work is more or less cast in stone and cited already, you can only follow-up
– aaaaaa
8 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
25
down vote













If you can prove or at least make a convincing case for the conjecture in the special case you need, I'd do the following:




  1. Describe the conjecture in the special case

  2. Prove or make the convincing case in the special case

  3. Write "in a previous draft, we expected this conjecture to hold generally. However, it has subsequently been shown ..."


If you can't or don't want to argue for the conjecture in your special case, then your formulation works as well.






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    16
    down vote













    When you believe, that your special case still holds, you can keep the conjecture and mention that you believe it holds for your special case and that it does not hold in the general case with a citation of the other paper.




    We conjecture X for all cases in which Y holds. Note that X does not hold in the general case, as shown by Name [42].




    So the other paper even improves on the revision of your paper and you can acknowledge this by adding this information and the citation. It would be way more complicated when the conjecture would be totally wrong. But when it is correct for a special case, both papers are useful.






    share|improve this answer






























      up vote
      3
      down vote














      One option that is out of the question is to simply delete the conjecture from the paper. The problem with this is that the latter paper has cited this conjecture as its motivation. If I removed the conjecture, I would be pulling the legs out from the subsequent paper.




      This isn't pulling the legs out, since the subsequent paper cites a published arxiv draft. Indeed, Tyszka published 152 drafts (of one work) over almost six years and any version can be cited.




      What I am leaning toward is to state something along the lines of "In an earlier draft, we had made the following conjecture:" and then include some discussion and citations about how the conjecture has subsequently been refuted.




      That's certainly a nice touch.




      I still believe that the conjecture could hold for the special case I need




      Prove this result, at least partially.






      share|improve this answer























      • “Prove this result.” Presumably the OP has already thought seriously about this and can’t yet see how, otherwise they would have included it as a theorem not a conjecture.
        – PLL
        15 hours ago








      • 2




        @PLL The OP believes the conjecture holds for a special case, even though the conjecture has been disproved in the general case. So, I presume the OP has a significant basis for their belief. At the very least, they can surely prove part of the special case, thereby reducing the leap of faith required to accept it.
        – user2768
        15 hours ago








      • 3




        I believe it COULD hold for the special case (i.e. it is still a relevant, interesting, and open, conjecture). I have no evidence that it DOES hold.
        – David Harris
        14 hours ago










      • @DavidHarris Without any evidence, I personally wouldn't call it a conjecture. But, the definition of conjecture is rather vague, so your usage is correct. I tried searching for a mathematician's definition: I couldn't find one. (I did stumble upon Guido's book of conjectures, which is quite nice.)
        – user2768
        14 hours ago








      • 5




        @user2768: I’d say mathematicians typically use conjecture for a statement we have some heuristic evidence of — e.g. various particular cases we know hold, or perhaps some numerical evidence — but no proof, and usually not even anything we’d call a partial proof, at the point where we first present it as a conjecture (since if we had a partial proof, we’d usually then isolate what was missing to complete it and present that statement as the conjecture instead).
        – PLL
        13 hours ago













      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "415"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f120748%2fhow-to-modify-a-final-draft-to-reflect-that-a-conjecture-in-its-preprint-was-ref%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      25
      down vote













      If you can prove or at least make a convincing case for the conjecture in the special case you need, I'd do the following:




      1. Describe the conjecture in the special case

      2. Prove or make the convincing case in the special case

      3. Write "in a previous draft, we expected this conjecture to hold generally. However, it has subsequently been shown ..."


      If you can't or don't want to argue for the conjecture in your special case, then your formulation works as well.






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        25
        down vote













        If you can prove or at least make a convincing case for the conjecture in the special case you need, I'd do the following:




        1. Describe the conjecture in the special case

        2. Prove or make the convincing case in the special case

        3. Write "in a previous draft, we expected this conjecture to hold generally. However, it has subsequently been shown ..."


        If you can't or don't want to argue for the conjecture in your special case, then your formulation works as well.






        share|improve this answer























          up vote
          25
          down vote










          up vote
          25
          down vote









          If you can prove or at least make a convincing case for the conjecture in the special case you need, I'd do the following:




          1. Describe the conjecture in the special case

          2. Prove or make the convincing case in the special case

          3. Write "in a previous draft, we expected this conjecture to hold generally. However, it has subsequently been shown ..."


          If you can't or don't want to argue for the conjecture in your special case, then your formulation works as well.






          share|improve this answer












          If you can prove or at least make a convincing case for the conjecture in the special case you need, I'd do the following:




          1. Describe the conjecture in the special case

          2. Prove or make the convincing case in the special case

          3. Write "in a previous draft, we expected this conjecture to hold generally. However, it has subsequently been shown ..."


          If you can't or don't want to argue for the conjecture in your special case, then your formulation works as well.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 14 hours ago









          Designerpot

          1,934213




          1,934213






















              up vote
              16
              down vote













              When you believe, that your special case still holds, you can keep the conjecture and mention that you believe it holds for your special case and that it does not hold in the general case with a citation of the other paper.




              We conjecture X for all cases in which Y holds. Note that X does not hold in the general case, as shown by Name [42].




              So the other paper even improves on the revision of your paper and you can acknowledge this by adding this information and the citation. It would be way more complicated when the conjecture would be totally wrong. But when it is correct for a special case, both papers are useful.






              share|improve this answer



























                up vote
                16
                down vote













                When you believe, that your special case still holds, you can keep the conjecture and mention that you believe it holds for your special case and that it does not hold in the general case with a citation of the other paper.




                We conjecture X for all cases in which Y holds. Note that X does not hold in the general case, as shown by Name [42].




                So the other paper even improves on the revision of your paper and you can acknowledge this by adding this information and the citation. It would be way more complicated when the conjecture would be totally wrong. But when it is correct for a special case, both papers are useful.






                share|improve this answer

























                  up vote
                  16
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  16
                  down vote









                  When you believe, that your special case still holds, you can keep the conjecture and mention that you believe it holds for your special case and that it does not hold in the general case with a citation of the other paper.




                  We conjecture X for all cases in which Y holds. Note that X does not hold in the general case, as shown by Name [42].




                  So the other paper even improves on the revision of your paper and you can acknowledge this by adding this information and the citation. It would be way more complicated when the conjecture would be totally wrong. But when it is correct for a special case, both papers are useful.






                  share|improve this answer














                  When you believe, that your special case still holds, you can keep the conjecture and mention that you believe it holds for your special case and that it does not hold in the general case with a citation of the other paper.




                  We conjecture X for all cases in which Y holds. Note that X does not hold in the general case, as shown by Name [42].




                  So the other paper even improves on the revision of your paper and you can acknowledge this by adding this information and the citation. It would be way more complicated when the conjecture would be totally wrong. But when it is correct for a special case, both papers are useful.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 13 hours ago

























                  answered 15 hours ago









                  allo

                  1,415214




                  1,415214






















                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote














                      One option that is out of the question is to simply delete the conjecture from the paper. The problem with this is that the latter paper has cited this conjecture as its motivation. If I removed the conjecture, I would be pulling the legs out from the subsequent paper.




                      This isn't pulling the legs out, since the subsequent paper cites a published arxiv draft. Indeed, Tyszka published 152 drafts (of one work) over almost six years and any version can be cited.




                      What I am leaning toward is to state something along the lines of "In an earlier draft, we had made the following conjecture:" and then include some discussion and citations about how the conjecture has subsequently been refuted.




                      That's certainly a nice touch.




                      I still believe that the conjecture could hold for the special case I need




                      Prove this result, at least partially.






                      share|improve this answer























                      • “Prove this result.” Presumably the OP has already thought seriously about this and can’t yet see how, otherwise they would have included it as a theorem not a conjecture.
                        – PLL
                        15 hours ago








                      • 2




                        @PLL The OP believes the conjecture holds for a special case, even though the conjecture has been disproved in the general case. So, I presume the OP has a significant basis for their belief. At the very least, they can surely prove part of the special case, thereby reducing the leap of faith required to accept it.
                        – user2768
                        15 hours ago








                      • 3




                        I believe it COULD hold for the special case (i.e. it is still a relevant, interesting, and open, conjecture). I have no evidence that it DOES hold.
                        – David Harris
                        14 hours ago










                      • @DavidHarris Without any evidence, I personally wouldn't call it a conjecture. But, the definition of conjecture is rather vague, so your usage is correct. I tried searching for a mathematician's definition: I couldn't find one. (I did stumble upon Guido's book of conjectures, which is quite nice.)
                        – user2768
                        14 hours ago








                      • 5




                        @user2768: I’d say mathematicians typically use conjecture for a statement we have some heuristic evidence of — e.g. various particular cases we know hold, or perhaps some numerical evidence — but no proof, and usually not even anything we’d call a partial proof, at the point where we first present it as a conjecture (since if we had a partial proof, we’d usually then isolate what was missing to complete it and present that statement as the conjecture instead).
                        – PLL
                        13 hours ago

















                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote














                      One option that is out of the question is to simply delete the conjecture from the paper. The problem with this is that the latter paper has cited this conjecture as its motivation. If I removed the conjecture, I would be pulling the legs out from the subsequent paper.




                      This isn't pulling the legs out, since the subsequent paper cites a published arxiv draft. Indeed, Tyszka published 152 drafts (of one work) over almost six years and any version can be cited.




                      What I am leaning toward is to state something along the lines of "In an earlier draft, we had made the following conjecture:" and then include some discussion and citations about how the conjecture has subsequently been refuted.




                      That's certainly a nice touch.




                      I still believe that the conjecture could hold for the special case I need




                      Prove this result, at least partially.






                      share|improve this answer























                      • “Prove this result.” Presumably the OP has already thought seriously about this and can’t yet see how, otherwise they would have included it as a theorem not a conjecture.
                        – PLL
                        15 hours ago








                      • 2




                        @PLL The OP believes the conjecture holds for a special case, even though the conjecture has been disproved in the general case. So, I presume the OP has a significant basis for their belief. At the very least, they can surely prove part of the special case, thereby reducing the leap of faith required to accept it.
                        – user2768
                        15 hours ago








                      • 3




                        I believe it COULD hold for the special case (i.e. it is still a relevant, interesting, and open, conjecture). I have no evidence that it DOES hold.
                        – David Harris
                        14 hours ago










                      • @DavidHarris Without any evidence, I personally wouldn't call it a conjecture. But, the definition of conjecture is rather vague, so your usage is correct. I tried searching for a mathematician's definition: I couldn't find one. (I did stumble upon Guido's book of conjectures, which is quite nice.)
                        – user2768
                        14 hours ago








                      • 5




                        @user2768: I’d say mathematicians typically use conjecture for a statement we have some heuristic evidence of — e.g. various particular cases we know hold, or perhaps some numerical evidence — but no proof, and usually not even anything we’d call a partial proof, at the point where we first present it as a conjecture (since if we had a partial proof, we’d usually then isolate what was missing to complete it and present that statement as the conjecture instead).
                        – PLL
                        13 hours ago















                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote










                      One option that is out of the question is to simply delete the conjecture from the paper. The problem with this is that the latter paper has cited this conjecture as its motivation. If I removed the conjecture, I would be pulling the legs out from the subsequent paper.




                      This isn't pulling the legs out, since the subsequent paper cites a published arxiv draft. Indeed, Tyszka published 152 drafts (of one work) over almost six years and any version can be cited.




                      What I am leaning toward is to state something along the lines of "In an earlier draft, we had made the following conjecture:" and then include some discussion and citations about how the conjecture has subsequently been refuted.




                      That's certainly a nice touch.




                      I still believe that the conjecture could hold for the special case I need




                      Prove this result, at least partially.






                      share|improve this answer















                      One option that is out of the question is to simply delete the conjecture from the paper. The problem with this is that the latter paper has cited this conjecture as its motivation. If I removed the conjecture, I would be pulling the legs out from the subsequent paper.




                      This isn't pulling the legs out, since the subsequent paper cites a published arxiv draft. Indeed, Tyszka published 152 drafts (of one work) over almost six years and any version can be cited.




                      What I am leaning toward is to state something along the lines of "In an earlier draft, we had made the following conjecture:" and then include some discussion and citations about how the conjecture has subsequently been refuted.




                      That's certainly a nice touch.




                      I still believe that the conjecture could hold for the special case I need




                      Prove this result, at least partially.







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited 13 hours ago

























                      answered 15 hours ago









                      user2768

                      9,86422543




                      9,86422543












                      • “Prove this result.” Presumably the OP has already thought seriously about this and can’t yet see how, otherwise they would have included it as a theorem not a conjecture.
                        – PLL
                        15 hours ago








                      • 2




                        @PLL The OP believes the conjecture holds for a special case, even though the conjecture has been disproved in the general case. So, I presume the OP has a significant basis for their belief. At the very least, they can surely prove part of the special case, thereby reducing the leap of faith required to accept it.
                        – user2768
                        15 hours ago








                      • 3




                        I believe it COULD hold for the special case (i.e. it is still a relevant, interesting, and open, conjecture). I have no evidence that it DOES hold.
                        – David Harris
                        14 hours ago










                      • @DavidHarris Without any evidence, I personally wouldn't call it a conjecture. But, the definition of conjecture is rather vague, so your usage is correct. I tried searching for a mathematician's definition: I couldn't find one. (I did stumble upon Guido's book of conjectures, which is quite nice.)
                        – user2768
                        14 hours ago








                      • 5




                        @user2768: I’d say mathematicians typically use conjecture for a statement we have some heuristic evidence of — e.g. various particular cases we know hold, or perhaps some numerical evidence — but no proof, and usually not even anything we’d call a partial proof, at the point where we first present it as a conjecture (since if we had a partial proof, we’d usually then isolate what was missing to complete it and present that statement as the conjecture instead).
                        – PLL
                        13 hours ago




















                      • “Prove this result.” Presumably the OP has already thought seriously about this and can’t yet see how, otherwise they would have included it as a theorem not a conjecture.
                        – PLL
                        15 hours ago








                      • 2




                        @PLL The OP believes the conjecture holds for a special case, even though the conjecture has been disproved in the general case. So, I presume the OP has a significant basis for their belief. At the very least, they can surely prove part of the special case, thereby reducing the leap of faith required to accept it.
                        – user2768
                        15 hours ago








                      • 3




                        I believe it COULD hold for the special case (i.e. it is still a relevant, interesting, and open, conjecture). I have no evidence that it DOES hold.
                        – David Harris
                        14 hours ago










                      • @DavidHarris Without any evidence, I personally wouldn't call it a conjecture. But, the definition of conjecture is rather vague, so your usage is correct. I tried searching for a mathematician's definition: I couldn't find one. (I did stumble upon Guido's book of conjectures, which is quite nice.)
                        – user2768
                        14 hours ago








                      • 5




                        @user2768: I’d say mathematicians typically use conjecture for a statement we have some heuristic evidence of — e.g. various particular cases we know hold, or perhaps some numerical evidence — but no proof, and usually not even anything we’d call a partial proof, at the point where we first present it as a conjecture (since if we had a partial proof, we’d usually then isolate what was missing to complete it and present that statement as the conjecture instead).
                        – PLL
                        13 hours ago


















                      “Prove this result.” Presumably the OP has already thought seriously about this and can’t yet see how, otherwise they would have included it as a theorem not a conjecture.
                      – PLL
                      15 hours ago






                      “Prove this result.” Presumably the OP has already thought seriously about this and can’t yet see how, otherwise they would have included it as a theorem not a conjecture.
                      – PLL
                      15 hours ago






                      2




                      2




                      @PLL The OP believes the conjecture holds for a special case, even though the conjecture has been disproved in the general case. So, I presume the OP has a significant basis for their belief. At the very least, they can surely prove part of the special case, thereby reducing the leap of faith required to accept it.
                      – user2768
                      15 hours ago






                      @PLL The OP believes the conjecture holds for a special case, even though the conjecture has been disproved in the general case. So, I presume the OP has a significant basis for their belief. At the very least, they can surely prove part of the special case, thereby reducing the leap of faith required to accept it.
                      – user2768
                      15 hours ago






                      3




                      3




                      I believe it COULD hold for the special case (i.e. it is still a relevant, interesting, and open, conjecture). I have no evidence that it DOES hold.
                      – David Harris
                      14 hours ago




                      I believe it COULD hold for the special case (i.e. it is still a relevant, interesting, and open, conjecture). I have no evidence that it DOES hold.
                      – David Harris
                      14 hours ago












                      @DavidHarris Without any evidence, I personally wouldn't call it a conjecture. But, the definition of conjecture is rather vague, so your usage is correct. I tried searching for a mathematician's definition: I couldn't find one. (I did stumble upon Guido's book of conjectures, which is quite nice.)
                      – user2768
                      14 hours ago






                      @DavidHarris Without any evidence, I personally wouldn't call it a conjecture. But, the definition of conjecture is rather vague, so your usage is correct. I tried searching for a mathematician's definition: I couldn't find one. (I did stumble upon Guido's book of conjectures, which is quite nice.)
                      – user2768
                      14 hours ago






                      5




                      5




                      @user2768: I’d say mathematicians typically use conjecture for a statement we have some heuristic evidence of — e.g. various particular cases we know hold, or perhaps some numerical evidence — but no proof, and usually not even anything we’d call a partial proof, at the point where we first present it as a conjecture (since if we had a partial proof, we’d usually then isolate what was missing to complete it and present that statement as the conjecture instead).
                      – PLL
                      13 hours ago






                      @user2768: I’d say mathematicians typically use conjecture for a statement we have some heuristic evidence of — e.g. various particular cases we know hold, or perhaps some numerical evidence — but no proof, and usually not even anything we’d call a partial proof, at the point where we first present it as a conjecture (since if we had a partial proof, we’d usually then isolate what was missing to complete it and present that statement as the conjecture instead).
                      – PLL
                      13 hours ago




















                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded



















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f120748%2fhow-to-modify-a-final-draft-to-reflect-that-a-conjecture-in-its-preprint-was-ref%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      What visual should I use to simply compare current year value vs last year in Power BI desktop

                      Image
                      0 I have column SubToBind that shows current year ratio and column PY SubToBind which shows previous year ratio. How can I simply create a card that would be displaying them both in a nice way? Something like that: I cannot achieve that with regular card, I also tried Card with States by OKViz but also unable to see both values. In KPI visual - I dont like the word "Goal", it will confuse end users. Are there any cards or other visuals that would do the job? Thanks powerbi dax powerbi-embedded share | improve this question edited Jun 11 '18 at 20:11 Oleg ...
                      Read more

                      How to ignore python UserWarning in pytest?

                      Image
                      up vote 1 down vote favorite I am using openpyxl for parsing .xlsm files, and pytest for testing. When I open a file, I get the: OpenPyxl -> UserWarning: Data Validation extension is not supported and will be removed That is not really a problem bcs. program works and I can't change the .xlsm file to fix that. But... When I run pytest with something like: def test_wrong_file_format(): assert check_excel(open_excel('file.xlsm')) == True I will get the warning i mentioned altought check_excel(open_excel('file.xlsm')) returns True and the test should suceed... Is there a nice way to tell the pytest that "It's not a bug it's a feature" and tests should pass even when they get this warning? Is there other way than using something like: with pytest.warns(UserWarning): ...
                      Read more

                      Alexandru Averescu

                      Image
                      Alexandre Averescu Alexandru Averescu Naissance 3 avril 1859 Babele, Ismail  (ro) près de Izmaïl (principauté de Moldavie) Décès 2 octobre 1938 (à 79 ans) [ 1 ] Bucarest Origine   Roumanie Arme cavalerie Grade Maréchal Années de service 1901-1917 Commandement chef d'état-major général 2 e  armée 3 e  armée Groupe d'armée sud armée du Danube Conflits Guerre russo-turque de 1877-1878 Deuxième guerre balkanique Première Guerre mondiale Faits d'armes Bataille de Turtucaia/Tutrakan Bataille de Mărăști Distinctions Autres fonctions 3 fois président du Conseil des ministres ministre des Affaires étrangères ministre sans portefeuille conseiller de la Couronne modifier   Alexandre Averescu (en roumain : Alexandru Averescu .mw-parser-output .prononciation>a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Loudspeaker.svg/11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png")center ...
                      Read more