🏅 Top traders

Wow, I wasn't expecting this to be so messy! I was sleeping through the action and woke up just now. Thanks for playing everyone.

I am going to resolve NO on this basis:

The intended spirit of the market was about the precondition for the Hutter bet, which Budden openly admits was not met (note to self: make such intended-spirits more explicit next time)

Earlier in the market I made one "clarification" which ended up being more of a source of confusion than anything else: https://manifold.markets/retr0id/did-davidbudden-submit-a-navierstok#9i5v8l5gvz

My intent for this clarification was to cover "submitted but rejected as spam/nonsense" type scenarios - failing to get an endorsement does not fall under this in my opinion, and counts as a failure to submit. I didn't know about the endorsement mechanism earlier so sorry for not factoring that in explicitly.

Consider: your job is to submit a paper to arXiv. your boss asks you if the paper has been submitted yet. if you're blocked on getting an endorsement, your answer is probably going to start with "no, because" rather than "yes, but".

@retr0id "The intended spirit of the market was about the precondition for the Hutter bet, which Budden openly admits was not met (note to self: make such intended-spirits more explicit next time)"

Except Marcus has agreed with me offline that he'll still (re)pay me 20k if (variants of) the papers I uploaded to github are still accepted by Clay :P

@DavidBudden "I lost on a technicality, but he is willing to, too"

@DavidBudden Interesting point, and iff he later ends up [re]paying 20k I might consider re-litigating this market resolution, but let's cross that bridge if we come to it.

@retr0id I mean the real spirit of the bet is "do I have a proof by EoY 2025 that is released publicly, that I believe resolved NS". Yes.

Seriously. I'll make no friends saying this, but I'd NA it. It's quadruple negatives all the way to the bottom

@DavidBudden (Note. I have not bet on this market.)

And with that concluded its bed time for me. @retr0id , all I ask is that you review all the comments and give both sides a fair hearing. I’ll continue to advocate for what I think is the correct resolution but I’m also not the type that believes whoever speaks last or most often wins.

Until tomorrow (when I’ll be back at tilting at different windmill thanks to @bens ’ puzzle). Perhaps he could upload a preprint containing a bonus hint?

Don't see how this can resolve YES based on the resolution criteria. I know Budden is claiming that he "submitted it" and it was rejected, but that's not how the arxiv submission process works. The submission was never completed due to the lack of an endorsement.

If you're filling out a google form and hit "submit" and the form rejects it and says "cannot submit form with _____ entry incomplete," that does not count as "submitting" the form.

@bens because the market creator literally said that in this situation the market would resolve yes? That was my understanding anyway.

Now you can enjoy debating the technical nuance of "upload" vs "submit", I suppose

@DavidBudden I will say this with 100% confidence. I uploaded the paper to arXiv in 2025.

@DavidBudden in that you... loaded a pdf into the submission page but never managed to complete the submission? okay, whatever lol

@bens Your cynicism is somewhat misplaced given the papers are sitting on github and twitter for everyone to see, no?

@MRME no, the creator said that as long as it was submitted before midnight, that it didn't matter if arxiv only approved it a few days later (as is typical). In this case, there was nothing formally submitted to arxiv because the uploader didn't have the account credentials to submit an arxiv preprint to the math server.

@DavidBudden David, this is a prediction market, not Twitter. I'm not trying to litigate the accuracy of your proofs or whether you fulfilled the terms of any bet. This market is specifically about whether a paper was submitted onto arXiv by a certain time. It was not.

@bens the paper was submitted to an arxiv server to the extent that I could click on it in browser and see the content of what I had uploaded. The submission-for-approval was blocked by endorsement criteria.

@DavidBudden (I hate minutiae like this, but they're as stupid in either direction)

@DavidBudden you mean you could click on the uploaded pdf and it opened in a new tab? Or the submision completed and generated a url? If the submission was completed, you should have in your email inbox an email from arxiv notifying you of a completed submission as proof!

@bens I agree, if you don't have endorsement you can't even make it past the "Start Submission" page, so clearly it can't be counted as a submission

@bens i have been convinced

@spiderduckpig I encourage you to try that workflow again

@prismatic wrongly so. Agin, retro is covered this situation and said it would resolve yes.

@MRME where i dont see this

@prismatic read down below. Busy trying to buy dips

@spiderduckpig I get this when I try to submit to Analysis of PDEs. In fact, I can't even upload files

@MRME "@AIBear hm, good question, I didn't consider this. but I'll stick to "submit" being the key word, not acceptance. (so it resolves YES, if there is evidence suggesting he did submit)"

you can't submit or even attempt to submit if you don't have an endorsement. upload isn't equal to submit

@bens good observation. By arXiv's definition of "successful submission", it wasn't submitted.

@DavidBudden Sorry. It wasn't "successfully submitted", to be precise.

@DavidBudden this market isn’t about a successful submission. It is about ANY submission.

@MRME buy more if you are confident about it :)

@prismatic I’m debating how much more I can ethically buy and at what price while not risking screwing over people where I have significant loans coming due next week.

@prismatic tl;dr market resolution reduces to "does arXiv blocking my "successful submission" on lack of endorsement qualify as submission or not, given I had uploaded the paper itself to their server before hitting this blocker"

@DavidBudden Did you submit to Analysis of PDEs? I can't even reach the file upload step without endorsement

@prismatic 500 at 10% order up. I don’t want to tumbles into anything if I’m wrong and I only get good credit terms because I make very sure to not screw people over

@MRME ill loan you 5k for 5.4k, due date Jan 17th 11:59pm EST, if you want more money to play around with

Just to bet against you? And then if I lose I can’t pay you back? Am I being dense here - I don’t understand how this makes sense.

@MRME The advantage is that you have more time to pay it back if you lose. honestly, i can extend to end of month at the same rate, idrc. offering based on the belief you will lose this market, but will make money in other markets before the due date.

@prismatic I’ll do 5k for 5.5k paid back at the end of the month under the condition you fill a 1k limit order at 20%.

Like at some point I’m hitting my risk averse Kelley criteria here.

@MRME sure, put it up and ill fill it

@prismatic up

@MRME done and loan sent

@prismatic received.

@bens this doesn’t seem at all ambiguous to me. Resolution criteria:

arXiv lists submission times for each paper, and the time must be prior to the new year in UTC-12 (i.e. anywhere on earth)

For YES; there needs to be a paper on arxiv with a time listed that satisfies the criteria. IIUC, we should not expect such a paper, because it was not possible for him to submit in the first place.

I don’t understand what part of the criteria would support a YES resolution.

Edit: I see, the case for YES is based on an interpretation of a comment below. The creator has pretty much full leeway to resolve as they’d like, but generally it’s a bad idea/bad form to follow comments that directly contradict the straightforward criteria (without updating the criteria). In this case it’s not even what I think the comment means, but regardless, it’s very bad to contradict the criteria that are still displayed on the market (but the creator can do as they’d like).