tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (recent trends in research in group theory)

Alexander Chervov comments on "recent trends in research in group theory" (19521)

Alexander Chervov — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:50:22 -0700

Guys are you so well-informed that you know what is happening in group theory (other field)?
Aren't you curious about it ?
Why forbid this curiosity, except FAQ?

I can see only one serious reason - this may cause chain reaction of similar questions and we get "spamed".
Recent "open problems" series of questions is an example.

Do you have other reasons?

PS forget : another reason I heard here: I have allergy for this ))

Yemon Choi comments on "recent trends in research in group theory" (19512)

Yemon Choi — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 12:00:31 -0700

In regards to previous comment, "conformal field thory" is at least more specific than "group theory"

Yemon Choi comments on "recent trends in research in group theory" (19511)

Yemon Choi — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 11:59:33 -0700

I agree with Henry Cohn and with HW's comment on the original post.

In contrast, I would be more sympathetic to a question like "I am interested in learning about current research into p-groups, what are the main areas of current work in that area?" I get the impression that the OP wants to find out what is important so he can learn about it, which I think is not always the best way to approach a new area; you need to get one basic knowledge and decide whether you are interested in right-angled Artin groups, or solvable p-groups, or algebraic profinite groups, etc, and then try to learn more about what interests you. But just saying "group theory" is asking for too much with too little effort of one's own.

Alexander Chervov comments on "recent trends in research in group theory" (19510)

Alexander Chervov — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 07:09:55 -0700

Example of similar question which is open:

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/37063/what-do-mathematicians-currently-do-in-conformal-field-theory-or-more-general-fi

Henry Cohn comments on "recent trends in research in group theory" (19509)

Henry Cohn — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 06:50:26 -0700

The FAQ states that "MathOverflow is not the appropriate place to ask somebody to write an expository article for you," which is how this comes across to me. It's a question that's completely generic (one could substitute any field for group theory) and incredibly broad. In principle, some kind expert might come along and supply a wonderful answer, but the closing criterion shouldn't be whether it's impossible to give a good answer. I don't see a principled reason to keep this question open, short of saying that all questions of the form "please supply information about topic X" are appropriate.

Michael Albanese comments on "recent trends in research in group theory" (19508)

Michael Albanese — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 06:24:27 -0700

I'm a relatively new MO user and I'm well aware of the culture of appropriately motivating the questions asked on the site. To be so brief (and ask so much), in my opinion, shows a lack of respect for fellow users. It could be interpreted that the OP didn't put much thought into the question, but instead expects those who intend to answer the question to do it for them. A little bit more information would be both helpful and courteous.

Alexander Chervov comments on "recent trends in research in group theory" (19506)

Alexander Chervov — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 05:04:53 -0700

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/101632/recent-trends-in-research-in-group-theory

Clearly the question is somewhere on the border of acceptable questions.
But hopefully can generate goods answers.
I am against closing such questions.

There is opinion that it should be closed:
"HW: On further consideration, let me also add that this question is really absurdly broad. Group theory is an enormous subject; at least a little motivation would be helpful. Does the OP want to start research in the area, or is he/she teaching a course? In either case, what's his/her background? I'm voting to close. – HW "

PS
Obviously should be done "CW".