<p>If you respectfully show that an important, i.e., often used/cited, result is false, I think that would be a significant contribution, since obviously those are often the results that have been scrutinized the most and people might build additional work off those results.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T06:15:25.150Z
2020-09-23T06:15:25.150Z
learning
<p>Is it valid to publish a minor result related to computer science complexity theory and classes that disproves and falsifies an existing result?</p>
<p>Would that be a valid and respectable endeavor?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T06:40:19.160Z
I’m voting to close this question because it belongs to https://academia.stackexchange.com .
Emil Jeřábek
<soft-question>
Publishing by showing falsity of existing results
Turbo
# Publishing by showing falsity of existing results

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-09-23)

Is it valid to publish a minor result related to computer science complexity theory and classes that disproves and falsifies an existing result?

Would that be a valid and respectable endeavor?

**Tags:** soft-question
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I’m voting to close this question because it belongs to https://academia.stackexchange.com .  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-09-23. Score: 3

If you respectfully show that an important, i.e., often used/cited, result is false, I think that would be a significant contribution, since obviously those are often the results that have been scrutinized the most and people might build additional work off those results.


---

