tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?)

Anixx comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10081)

Anixx — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:14:26 -0700

> You said that it was possible to prove new theorems in analysis 'without serious education', or words to that effect,

No I meant it is more possible in analysis than in the fields I counted.

Anixx comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10080)

Anixx — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:12:48 -0700

> Without a justification for convergence

Convergence is related to series, not to the function. For this function the approximate plot was known before the formula. Even more, I found the formula trying to construct a function which would have approximately the same plot as I imagined. It turned out that the constructed formula gives not an approximate, but exact answer.

HJRW comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10057)

HJRW — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:43:31 -0700

Sorry, I see nothing confrontational there, I just wanted to encourage Daniel Geisler by saying that is is quite possible to make a substantial result in his field of activity (rather than in other fields where it is more difficult) even in his age and background.

It came across to me as very dismissive of both the poster and of the field of analysis, and the number of down votes it received suggests that I was not alone in this reading. You said that it was possible to prove new theorems in analysis 'without serious education', or words to that effect, and contrasted this with other fields.

j2m comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10045)

j2m — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 18:15:21 -0700

After lurking for months, I finally felt prompted to register.

"I could draw an approximate plot of the indefinite sum of tangent: I knew the values of this function in certain points and its asymptotes, so it was never a question for me that such smooth function exists"

- Values/plots do not a function make. Without a justification for convergence like what Gerald Edgar did in his CW answer, your proposal holds no water.

Anixx comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10032)

Anixx — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:18:10 -0700

@ Will Jagy

And even without having a ready formula yet, I could draw an approximate plot of the indefinite sum of tangent: I knew the values of this function in certain points and its asymptotes, so it was never a question for me that such smooth function exists. So stop accusing me of pushing computer results here without understanding. Anyway you all people have computer algebra systems and access to Wolfram Alpha and nobody suggested niether first, nor the second result.

Anixx comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10031)

Anixx — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:06:19 -0700

> Anixx, regardless of who called whom what when, I have provided an explicit example of an instance when you certainly were unambiguously confrontational.

Sorry, I see nothing confrontational there, I just wanted to encourage Daniel Geisler by saying that is is quite possible to make a substantial result in his field of activity (rather than in other fields where it is more difficult) even in his age and background. How this can be confrontational? Encouraging somebody = confrontational?

Anixx comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10030)

Anixx — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:59:52 -0700

> But I accuse you of ***not caring*** whether your expression could be proved to make sense.

Even if this is so, why not believing in Oleg's answer constitutes "confrontational attitude"?

Anixx comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10029)

Anixx — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:55:30 -0700

> As far as I am concerned, your answer acquired some value when Gerald Edgar proved that your expression had meaning, by showing convergence of a certain sum and describing the places where it did not. You were satisfied, the entire time, with an expression coming off a computer.

No, I always knew that it converges. And I did not derive it with computer, I constructed it in the head, and then searched for appropriate way to derive it from tangent series. It is simply evident that it converges because psi-function grows extremely slow (much slower than logarithm). Regardless of my answer, I think it is evident that one can construct a smooth indefinite sum function for a smooth interval of tan(x). It is so evident that I cannot uderstand the motives of those who voted for the Oleg's answer.

HJRW comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10028)

HJRW — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:29:11 -0700

Anixx, regardless of who called whom what when, I have provided an explicit example of an instance when you certainly were unambiguously confrontational. Since it has been deleted I can't see it any more, but you and I both know it was there. You need to accept that your behaviour is at least part of what's upsetting people here. If you acknowledge that, and if, as Will Jagy suggests, you make mathematical contributions to MO, then I think you'll find that things will get a lot easier.

Anyway, that's the advice I have, for better or worse.

jbl, I take your point.

Will Jagy comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10027)

Will Jagy — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:26:25 -0700

I will probably regret this, but there is a mathematical point mixed in with the personal. Anixx, on the indefinite sum question, you kept insisting that you had the correct answer, while people questioned whether you had actually defined anything at all. As far as I am concerned, your answer acquired some value when Gerald Edgar proved that your expression had meaning, by showing convergence of a certain sum and describing the places where it did not. You were satisfied, the entire time, with an expression coming off a computer.

I am making an extremely serious charge here, one that I hope you will eventually understand. I accuse you of making no effort to show that your expression had any meaning. I think you must have some mathematics background mixed in with the massive dose of computer programming, possibly substantial mathematics. But I accuse you of ***not caring*** whether your expression could be proved to make sense. My most damning evidence is that you thanked Gerald Edgar for looking into the convergence issue, which I take to mean that you had made no serious effort yourself. Well, only you know how far your thinking went. It appears that you believed, and still believe, that you were right because your computer spat out an expression.

Anixx comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10026)

Anixx — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 08:37:39 -0700

> And I think everyone can agree that "confrontational attitude" is an indisputably correct charge.

First time you accused me in "confrontational attitude" because I did not accept the answer which you at the time perceived as correct. Nice!

Anixx comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10025)

Anixx — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 08:27:10 -0700

So calling somebody a troll is not confrontational or inflammatory?

jbl comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10024)

jbl — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 08:22:24 -0700

@wilton, I think you and I rather agree but that you just aren't willing to call someone persistantly confrontational and inflammatory a troll. Note that several users have attempted to communicate to Anixx how s/he could change his or her behavior with exactly 0 effect so far, and that these attempts have either been ignored or met with further complaints. I have no doubt the questions asked are genuine, good-faith questions, but they are mostly inappropriate for MathOverflow (so far 5 of 8 have been closed). There's very little evidence that Anixx has tried to understand anything that has been communicated to him or her about what makes a question appropriate for this site. I am quite comfortable calling this behavior "trolling." If you are not, that's fine, too. :)

Edited: Anixx posted while I was typing. Note that Anixx still hasn't been able to parse my comment about accepting a correct answer. And I think everyone can agree that "confrontational attitude" is an indisputably correct charge. I'll now withdraw from this conversation; if anyone would like to communicate with me, you can find my e-mail by following the link in my MO user page.

Anixx comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10023)

Anixx — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 08:17:13 -0700

I think jbl just attacks me because he to the very end defended an incorrect answer by Oleg Eroshkin in this question http://mathoverflow.net/questions/41011/what-is-the-indefinite-sum-of-tanx He even accused me in "confrontational attitude" just because I do not accept that "correct" answer:

"Anixx, your attitude is confrontational and unpleasant(...) The main differences between your posts and the other(...) the willingness to accept the meaningful, correct answer of Oleg Eroshkin."

It seems it was painful for him to finally accept that he was not right.

HJRW comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10022)

HJRW — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:39:54 -0700

Let's try to keep it civil.

Anixx - I think the accusation of trollery derives from your persistently abrasive and confrontational tone. For instance, as some people observed above, the title of your question came across as argumentative. To be fair, I would guess that a large part of this abrasiveness can be ascribed to the fact (which I presume) that English isn't your first language. Compare

Is the analysis as thought in universities in fact the analysis of definable numbers?

with

Is undergraduate analysis in fact the analysis of definable numbers?

which I think would have been less problematic. The 'taught'/'thought' mistake is unfortunate, and the two questions are the same if you only care about the literal meaning, but the first manages to suggest that 'universities' think about analysis incorrectly or dishonestly.

That said, some of your comments and answers are genuinely rude - I'm thinking of a recently deleted answer to this question. I would suggest that you make a real effort to be less confrontational, and in response I hope some of the others here will cut you more slack.

jbl - I agree with Qiaochu's assessment that many of Anixx's questions have been made in good faith, and as such there's no call to accuse her/him of trollery. Wikipedia defines a troll as

someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

I think it's clear from Anixx's passionate responses that her/his primary goal is usually to engage with the content of the question or answer. Though I agree that that engagement often manifests itself in unfortunate ways.

Anixx comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10021)

Anixx — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 06:45:42 -0700

> +1 to andrescaicedo and Andrew Stacey. Anixx basically continues to operate as a high-level troll.

It is you who is troll. I asked a question which did bother me for many years from the time I was studying.

Robin Chapman comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (10017)

Robin Chapman — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 00:51:01 -0700

Yes, as Andrew says, "a good answer does not a good question make".
Although Joel's excellent answer was a definite contribution to
civilization, the original question was combative, polemical
and inchoherent. It was a poor question which did not merit a reply
of the quality of Joel's.

Please could users think very carefully when they consider voting to reopen,
and then desist. I have yet to see a re-opened MO question which has
merited its re-opening.

jbl comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (9985)

jbl — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:12:16 -0700

There are at least two Thurstons on MO. ;)

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (9982)

Qiaochu Yuan — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:54:37 -0700

@Andrew Stacey: I think the question was interesting and I would have voted to reopen whether or not JDH was going to post an answer. I am trying to adhere to the philosophy of this sentence in Thurston's MO user page: "I enjoy questions that seem honest, even when they admit or reveal confusion, in preference to questions that appear designed to project sophistication." The question seemed honest to me even if Anixx is being somewhat obstinate about understanding JDH's answer.

jbl comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (9975)

jbl — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:34:45 -0700

+1 to andrescaicedo and Andrew Stacey. Anixx basically continues to operate as a high-level troll.

Andrew Stacey comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (9966)

Andrew Stacey — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 03:58:41 -0700

For future reference: there is nothing stopping someone posting an answer after the question's been closed (for a short period of time) and that is allowed precisely to avoid this situation.

I voted to close this question and would do so again, were I allowed by the software. I would ask those who voted to reopen it a simple question: what are the merits of the question that led you to vote to reopen it? Joel having a great answer is not sufficient reason to reopen a question. That's a sufficient reason to ask Joel to start a blog, or to edit the Wikipedia page to correct the original mistakes.

I agree with Scott's sentiment but would rephrase it: "A universe with this information is better than a universe without", but (I know that this is a contentious viewpoint), MO is not the universe. Not everything has to be here.

Repeat after me:

A good answer does not a good question make.

Andres Caicedo comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (9949)

Andres Caicedo — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 22:53:37 -0700

Why don't we close it, then? Best of all possible universes, right? We have the answer and no more of the annoyance.

Scott Carnahan comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (9948)

Scott Carnahan — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:57:12 -0700

It seems we are now seeing the outcome of the reopening experiment. Our lemonade-maker-in-chief has posted an excellent answer, but much of its merit has been lost on the questioner, who continues to argue banal points. I think with all other things being equal, a universe with this answer is better than a universe without, but the tone of that question still annoys me. It's basically claiming, "Oh, those theorems you thought you proved in analysis? Well, I found a hole in all of them."

Gerry Myerson comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (9939)

Gerry Myerson — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:20:06 -0700

I have nothing to say about question 44102. But I can think of several excellent reasons for voting to close a question outside my field. Molecular biology is outside my field, but I will cheerfully vote to close any question I see if I can tell it's about molecular biology and not about mathematics. Algebraic K-theory is outside my field, but I will cheerfully vote to close any question that asks, "Why did Professor so-and-so write such stupid things about algebraic K-theory?" I'm sure you can come up with many other reasons for voting to close a question outside your field.

Kevin Buzzard comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (9938)

Kevin Buzzard — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:11:13 -0700

It's not only that---it seems to me that the question is based on a basic misapprehension. Just because I can't write down most real numbers, that doesn't matter. I can still prove "for all x, x^2>=0". You seem to be under the impression that because I can't write down all real numbers I can't quantify over them!

geraldedgar comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (9934)

geraldedgar — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 08:15:49 -0700

I agree with Qiaochu. Even your title seems argumentative. Perhaps you need to practice wording something so that it looks like a question, and not like the beginning of a quarrel.

Anixx comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (9930)

Anixx — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 06:31:17 -0700

Now reopened, thanks.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (9928)

Qiaochu Yuan — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 06:06:43 -0700

I think the question is interesting and I have voted to reopen. (But I don't think accusing people of being narrowminded is the way to win them over to your cause.)

Anixx comments on "Why people vote to close questions outside of their field?" (9927)

Anixx — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 06:01:30 -0700

I have just posted a question here: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/44102/is-the-analysis-as-thought-in-universities-in-fact-the-analysis-of-definable-numb

but it was closed just in minutes as "not a real question". Dispite that the question is formulated as clear as possible: "how to know that all those theorems of analysis are true for the whole continuum and not just for a countable subset?".

Joel David Hamkins commented that he has an extensive answer to this question, but he could not post it because the question was closed just before he pushed the submit button.

People, if you are not interested in the field or cannot answer, please do not vote to close questions in that field.