tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (John Baez)

geraldedgar comments on "John Baez" (10470)

geraldedgar — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:18:24 -0800

*Of the last 10 Fields medalists, only one is active on MO*

(Under their own name...)

WillieWong comments on "John Baez" (10455)

WillieWong — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:16:16 -0800

@Andy: if you count the last 14 Fields medalists, the fraction improves significantly.

Andy Putman comments on "John Baez" (10454)

Andy Putman — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:03:22 -0800

@Ryan : Of the last 10 Fields medalists, only one is active on MO .

Ryan Budney comments on "John Baez" (10453)

Ryan Budney — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:55:43 -0800

@Mariano: Most of the ones I can think of are all dead. I'd be really happy if Minkowski logged in and gave us some Einstein-as-an-undergraduate stories, though.

Mariano comments on "John Baez" (10452)

Mariano — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:36:21 -0800

Hmm, I can think of many celebrities missing!

Ryan Budney comments on "John Baez" (10451)

Ryan Budney — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:09:36 -0800

Martin, like near everyone else this is a non-issue with me. All the previous "math celebrities" (that's less of an oxymoron the more myopically mathy one is, I suppose) have got similar if not more extreme welcomes.

If it's any comfort we're running low on non-MO-active math celebrities. So barring Perelman or Grothendieck logging in, it's smooth sailing from here on out. :)

Mariano comments on "John Baez" (10450)

Mariano — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 09:28:12 -0800

I don't understand why it is a concern, really.

Is the problem that we may have $RANDOM_MATH_CELEBRITY register, get upvoted to the skies because of whatever reason and... put the power thereby invested on him/her to, hmm, evil (?)

Todd Trimble comments on "John Baez" (10445)

Todd Trimble — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:51:42 -0800

I'll bet Martin B's suspicions are correct, but I also agree that it's a relatively minor concern. I think the same thing happened with other stars who entered the scene, like Bill Thurston, who was immediately showered with upvotes from all directions. But his presence is a great thing for MO. So is John Baez's presence.

Oh, and John Baez's question was very useful and clear. JB is an all-around useful guy!

Scott Carnahan comments on "John Baez" (10434)

Scott Carnahan — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 05:39:23 -0800

As far as I can tell, upvotes on a question are intended to indicate agreement with the statement: "This question is useful and clear". That is the text that pops up when I wave my mouse over the upward pointing arrow. Although I doubt that people follow this intent strictly (and I also doubt that they need to), it is conceivable to me that 17 MathOverflow users found John Baez's question useful and clear.

Cam McLeman comments on "John Baez" (10433)

Cam McLeman — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 05:39:07 -0800

Agreed. This is a particularly silly concern, in my opinion. While there's a sense in which reputation is a reward for putting in work, the point of view from which one would take affront at "free" points going to John Baez, the more important aspect of reputation is that it permits the easy visibility of experts in the field. From this point of view, welcoming John Baez to the site with a flurry of upvotes is not only, well, welcoming, but also appropriate. I, for one, happily admit to upvoting John Tate's response before I even read it.

Also, there are daily point caps anyway, so the effect won't be particularly exaggerated.

deane.yang comments on "John Baez" (10432)

deane.yang — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 05:23:57 -0800

My impression is that, even for pure mathematicians, having a big reputation or "celebrity status" gains one advantages both on and off MathOverflow. There's nothing to be done about this, since it happens largely unconsciously. I think the benefit (for example, having top notch people participate actively on MathOverflow) far outweighs this rather minor annoyance.

Harry Gindi comments on "John Baez" (10431)

Harry Gindi — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 04:09:44 -0800

@Martin:

The same could have been said of John Tate or Jacob Lurie (two recent ones I can remember), but there was no meta thread like this.

Gerry Myerson comments on "John Baez" (10430)

Gerry Myerson — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 03:59:49 -0800

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that people are giving upvotes simply because they like John Baez? If so, is there any evidence for that? Or is this a bit of reverse psychology, where you're trying to draw the attention of MO to the presence of JB so we'll all vote him up so he'll be flattered and stick around?

Maybe I should have stopped at "I don't understand."

Martin B. comments on "John Baez" (10426)

Martin B. — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 01:26:12 -0800

I just want to remind you that upvotes for questions are intended to measure the "quality" and "your personal interest" of the question, and NOT the reputation of the questioner (inside or outside mathoverflow).

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/45410/formally-real-jordan-algebras

By the way, I like Will Jagy's introduction very much.