Find out in this month’s issue of the notices of the AMS

### Recent Comments

- kris on The Riemann hypothesis for graphs
- Paul Rio on The Riemann hypothesis for graphs
- Paul Rio on The Riemann hypothesis for graphs
- Mohammad on The Riemann hypothesis for graphs
- Jeffrey Uhlmann on How would you call it?

### non-theory

### theory

### Archives

- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- November 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006

### a

Additive Combinatorics
Apple
average-case complexity
Avi Wigderson
Ben Green
CCA security
Cheeger inequality
Circuit complexity
circuit lower bounds
Conceptual contributions
cryptography
CS254 2010
Dan Spielman
Decision Diffie-Hellman
eigenvalues
eigenvectors
Expanders
Fields Medal
FOCS 2006
FOCS 2010
Goldreich-Levin
Graph Isomorphism
hard-core predicate
Hard-Core Sets
ICM 2006
Integrality gap
Laplacian
LaTeX
LaTeX in WordPress
Leonid Levin
linear programming
Luby-Rackoff
MAC
Max Cut
maximum flow
Metric embeddings
Moses Charikar
Motwani lecture
National Review
Natural Proofs
Notices of the AMS
Oded Goldreich
one-way function
PCP
polynomial hierarchy
Proposition 8
pseudorandom function
Pseudorandomness
pseudorandom permutation
public-key encryption
quadratic residue
Random Oracle Model
random walks
Regularity Lemma
RSA
Russell Impagliazzo
Ryan Williams
safety
SAT
signature schemes
Silvio Micali
sparsest cut
spectral graph theory
Spectral partitioning
Stephen Colbert
STOC and FOCS
Szemeredi Theorem
Tamar Ziegler
Terence Tao
things that are excellent
Tim Gowers
Turing Centennial
unique games
World Cup
Zero Knowledge

### Top Posts

- The spectrum of the infinite tree
- The Riemann hypothesis for graphs
- LaTeX to WordPress
- Lecture Notes
- How would you call it?
- Congratulations!
- CS261 Lecture 5: Linear Programming
- CS261 Lecture 13: Edge Connectivity
- CS261 Lecture 11: Strongly Polynomial Time Algorithms
- CS359G Lecture 3: Cheeger's inequality

## 5 comments

Comments feed for this article

November 29, 2010 at 4:17 pm

Doug TygarYeah, but look how badly computer science does in figure 2. Only astronomy ranks lower.

What this indicates to me is that the selection of journals that the Zentralblatt database indexes is more diverse than what one would traditionally consider as “mathematics” papers.

November 29, 2010 at 5:28 pm

CS-Math Amateur@ Doug Tygar: actually, as the caption of Figure 2 says, “The journal had no papers about the one subject at the bottom”, i.e., Astronomy. Same story for Figure 3.

@ Luca: within CS, isn’t the same as “formally generalist” flagship conferences (no names necessary), biased toward a small (someone might want to ironically say “well-guarded”) set of topic?

November 29, 2010 at 6:10 pm

Yaroslav BulatovInteresting…”bias graph” seems like a good way to summarize a journal

November 29, 2010 at 10:55 pm

lucaDoug, why do you say “but”? The low ranking in figure 2 is the answer to the question in the title of the post.

I think that the reason for the low number of computer science papers in the proceedings of the AMS is simply that it wouldn’t occur to most of us to send a paper there, and the same may be true of other under-represented areas. I don’t think that the author is suggesting that the editors of those “generalist” journals are biased, but rather that the journals present a biased (in the statistical, not judgmental, sense) picture of the mathematical landscape.

November 30, 2010 at 4:51 am

Math BoyEveryone knows that algebraic geometry is at the top of the math hierarchy and combinatorics is at the bottom.

Sheesh. Get with the program already!