tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Spillover thread for Isomorphism Theorem comments)

Harry Gindi comments on "Spillover thread for Isomorphism Theorem comments" (9601)

2010-10-15T19:03:28-07:00

Grétar, Richard Gowers would be gowers's son, who was mentioned in his comment, and Dick Gowers would be his grandfather.

Grétar Amazeen comments on "Spillover thread for Isomorphism Theorem comments" (9600)

2010-10-15T18:51:44-07:00

deleted due to misunderstanding

WillieWong comments on "Spillover thread for Isomorphism Theorem comments" (9599)

2010-10-15T18:33:16-07:00

To clarify Gerhard's account a little bit, it was Mariano who made the comment (which is still there) about analogy with language, an observation some people feel are besides the point and some people feel are inaccurate; unknown (google) decided to call Mariano out on both, and used some unpleasant language along the way. (That one was deleted.)

(Edit: after re-reading Gerhard's description, it appears I may have misunderstood at first what he was trying to say. This post was edited to reflect my "Aha!" moment.)

grp comments on "Spillover thread for Isomorphism Theorem comments" (9598)

2010-10-15T15:16:42-07:00

To Harry: Perhaps someone with appropriate powers can point you to whatever trace is left. Much of the todo was caused by unknown (google) starting off his response to Mariano's first comment by something similar to name-calling (as in "Don't be a ...") and then saying something about the reasonableness of the questioner's analogy with language. If unknown (google) had started his comment in a more civil way, there would have been less discussion and certainly a different response from me. Then again, I would not have learned about Richard Gowers (to his health, gents! (assuming have the name right)) if that had happened.

Gerhard Paseman, 2010.10.15

Harry Gindi comments on "Spillover thread for Isomorphism Theorem comments" (9597)

2010-10-15T14:37:42-07:00

In the good old days, we didn't need to have these discussions because we closed almost every questionable question anyway.

Also, could someone please tell me what the original comments were that pissed people off so much?

WillieWong comments on "Spillover thread for Isomorphism Theorem comments" (9595)

2010-10-15T13:11:56-07:00

I'm personally not opposed to a bit of pedantry or a bit of pun in the comments. Humour and levity do brighten the day. What I am opposed to is a high noise to signal ratio.

When secondary tangential discussions, especially those that can be contentious, drown out comments that are actually concerned with the primary mission of MO, I think a line has been crossed. And I hope that those involved in such discussions should have the awareness to bring such discussions themselves to Meta before too many useful comments fall under the fold.

Also, another reason I started this thread is because there was a danger that the comments may degenerate into yet another discussion about what is and what is not appropriate on MO, and I am pretty sure we've all agreed that such discussion about MO should happen on Meta, and not on MO itself.

grp comments on "Spillover thread for Isomorphism Theorem comments" (9594)

2010-10-15T12:11:12-07:00

To turn this thread into some use, I start with the following conflict: the part of me that follows rules is somewhat abashed at the off-topic chatter that occurs in the comments, while another part recognizes the fallibility of the human condition and the desire for tangency and light-hearted action.

Practically speaking, I imagine that pants will be worn most of the time in MathOverflow, but that even mathematicians have to pee (or eliminate, or express themselves in divers fashion). Should the community spend time cleaning up after itself, removing irrelevancies and borderline or mild examples of undesired behaviour? Or should it be recognized that MathOverflow is in part a mirror of what happens at some scientific gatherings, which will include some levity, punning ranging from inscrutable to clever to short of outrageous, and some irrelevance which may be necessary to avoid the strain of too much focus on the topic of the gathering?

This may open a can of worms, inviting more people to push the boundaries of what is acceptable on MathOverflow.
I prefer that instead it solicits comments here on this meta thread, especially on the social nature of MathOverflow. I also think a nod should be given to the fact that MathOverflow is a publicly (and not just by the academic public) viewable forum; as I get more comfortable with using MathOverflow, I am in danger of forgetting this fact. Are others here in the same danger?

Let us also not forget that, to some extent, participation in MathOverflow is because it is fun, or at least appealing, to many of its participants. To ask an obvious question, how do we keep it fun (and perhaps make it more fun) while keeping true to the stated and unstated parts of MathOverflow's mission?

The practical answer will probably end up being: continue as usual, and think more about the math and less about
tangencies, and things (and their moderators) will take care of themselves. However, I may be wrong about that being the correct answer. Hence this post.

Gerhard "Navel Spelunking; Bring Your Flashlight" Paseman, 2010.10.15

Yemon Choi comments on "Spillover thread for Isomorphism Theorem comments" (9538)

2010-10-13T11:29:14-07:00

And if you're reading this, please go and upvote Willie's comment on that thread so that the link to meta appears "above the fold".

WillieWong comments on "Spillover thread for Isomorphism Theorem comments" (9536)

2010-10-13T11:15:29-07:00

Too many off-(main)-topic comments there. Please put further discussions below.

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/41955/does-any-textbook-take-this-approach-to-the-isomorphism-theorems