tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (historical basis rieman surfaces)

Gerry Myerson comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16122)

2011-09-15T18:26:17-07:00

@Sadiq, at the very least, when you post to both MO and m.se, mention at both places that you are doing this. Otherwise, you are just asking for duplication of effort, which means you are asking people to waste their time on one site writing things that have already been written by someone else on the other. Even if you post at one site and then a week later post the same question at the other, let people at both sites know you are doing this. It is common courtesy.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16121)

2011-09-15T17:15:37-07:00

This - I think - may have been better responded to by academic mathematicians rather than undergraduates.

Whether or not it's true that the only answers you'll get on math.SE are from undergraduates (and it's not), this is not the criterion for posting on MO. The criterion is, roughly, that the question has to be of research interest to research mathematicians.

quid comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16119)

2011-09-15T15:42:58-07:00

Sadiq, thank you for the explanation.

Let us ignore your first post; you are right I do not know the context. I will now understand it as a pure announcement and that is fine.

Now, for the current one: on a very basic level the situation is simple. I asked you the day before not to crosspost within a period shorter than some days, and this statement had some community support. And you simply ignored this request and crossposted within three hours. Okay, you are free to do as you like. But, then I am free to be somewhat annoyed that my request is ignored. (Which is by the way a completely standard request, as documented by the fact that always essentially instantly on both or the repsective site a 'warning' appeared.) Even for a question I'd find absolutely perfect for MO I would be annoyed if it was crossposted, and would be in favor of closing it (on one of the two sites), since it is inconvenient/harmful to have a split discussion. And, I find this particullarly annoying as I cannot see a really good reason why you cannot wait some days or at least one. Within three hours not even every frequent user will have seen your question, and perhaps if seen not yet answered. You know people also have some other repsonsibilities besides answerering your questions, and might delay it the evening or something.

Then, you say the question should be answered by academic mathematicians not undergraduates. Now, while I know some undergraduates that likely could give a good answer, I would agree that a many/most undergraduate could not answer this well or at all. However, even the most superficial inspection of the math.SE user list will reveal that not only undergraduates are on math.SE but plenty of academic mathematicians; infact most of the top rep MO users have a high rep on math.SE too. And, for example, Adam Smith says on his user page he is an associated professor. So, this point is to some extent moot.

FInally, for your question. What type of deeper understanding of how/why/in what way Riemann surfaces changed mathematics do you expect? On basic grounds one would assume some basic understanding of the former and the latter is a prerequisite. Do you fulfil these? Your communication with Adam Smith suggest a clear "no", as it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of mathematics as a field [which is fine and not unexpected for an undergraduate (in particular a non-math undergraduate)].

I suggest you follow the suggestion you got and have a look at the books that were recommended to you. If you then have some specific question the math.SE or MO (but not both at the same time!) will be happy to answer.

thierryzell comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16118)

2011-09-15T15:32:45-07:00

>This - I think - may have been better responded to by academic mathematicians rather than undergraduates.

Sadiq: If I understand this sentence correctly, you seem to be working under the mistaken assumption that because math.SE is more suitable for undergraduate-level questions, it is mostly populated by undergraduates. I can assure you that it is absolutely ***not*** the case. Though I don't frequent SE very often, I notice that many of the exceptionally active users on MO are *also* exceptionally active on SE (and I sit and wonder at where they find the time to do all this!). So posting on SE is very unlikely to give you worse answers.

Todd Trimble comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16116)

2011-09-15T14:57:35-07:00

@Sadiq: I actually thought the answers you received at SE were quite reasonable. Considering how the question was pitched, I don't think you really could have expected a better answer at MO. (I am putting aside here the issue of cross-posting, which I hope we can agree is an unqualified no-no.)

Anyway, good to know that you are a big supporter of MO. Here's hoping for fruitful interactions in the future.

Sadiq Ahmed comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16114)

2011-09-15T14:31:20-07:00

(I want to say - in the said-regard -- that I'm a big supporter of Math Overflow -- so if I am doing something which may be unconstructive for any reason, let me know: I will be the *first* person to try to correct my action(s). ... Just letting everyone know here. :)) -- regards, Sadiq

Sadiq Ahmed comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16113)

2011-09-15T14:26:42-07:00

If there are any other questions in regards to the above, I will be happy to respond.

-- Sadiq

Sadiq Ahmed comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16112)

2011-09-15T14:14:10-07:00

Regarding Adam Smith and my exchanges, I'm not sure if there is any issue to that. -- If there is, please do share it.

-- Sadiq

Sadiq Ahmed comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16111)

2011-09-15T14:11:07-07:00

Regarding me not following up on my first post: yes. I apologize, but I sort of didn't know if sharing it again on the 'Meta-' was relevant after we had shared the viewpoints we did. Basically, [as I had stated in the comments section], it wasn't really to do with MO: just to bring to attention the said-site. ... My apologies it I sort of did not follow up on the matter.

Also, I understand that a certain user may have raised an objection to that post. ... I actually had a fairly lengthy set of exchanges with him earlier regarding the issue. I don't want to start any flame wars or anything, only to say that the creator of the site in question is someone who is aware of my actions and did not at all disapprove - and in fact was well aware and took interest in my activities --
(it is only the user who disapproves, and for some reason does not want to accept any other viewpoints regarding the matter; -- again, I respect any and all views, but here he is not directly aware of the course of events that took place prior to his initial objection(s) to my actions --)

Sadiq Ahmed comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16110)

2011-09-15T14:02:10-07:00

... mathematical field. This - I think - may have been better responded to by academic mathematicians rather than undergraduates. (As the post was posted, I also provided the MSE note to clearly indicate that I had also posted in Math SE.).

Sadiq Ahmed comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16109)

2011-09-15T13:58:46-07:00

@quid: "In my opinion the question in isolation is not all that problematic. What is problematic is the crossposting. Under normal circumstances I would not downvote a rather new user for a cross post; I hardly ever downvote anything, I believe this was my second ever serious downvote (all others, of the still few, where some up/down sorting in CW lists)."

My response: I did quite clearly and thoroughly understand the advice / feedback you provided on my first MO-specific post. ... And also yes: I agreed completely with the position you elaborated regarding the MO/SE divide. But, given the exact question and the sort of feedback I was expecting, I still chose to cross-post on MO. Reason: I felt the question was sort of in the "borderline" between the two sites: it was not a specific, undergraduate-type problem / solution question, but neither was it squarely in the research-questions category. ... The question was posted on MO because I wanted to receive a deeper viewpoint on how, why, and in what way Riemann surfaces developed and later changed the ... (cont'd)...

quid comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16108)

2011-09-15T13:58:22-07:00

technical comment, obsolete

Sadiq Ahmed comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16106)

2011-09-15T13:46:23-07:00

Hello:

So I've read the posts above, and would like to respond to each of your posts in order if possible. ... Here goes:

thierryzell comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16103)

2011-09-15T13:25:54-07:00

I am always a bit ticked off by some MO users, who, when a question's suitability is being challenged, reply something along the lines of "Oh, but there is an MO-level answer to that question", and thus totally disregard: (a) the less than ideal wording of the original question; (b) the fact that the OP is *not* after an MO-level answer.

This question is a perfect example of the kind of flaws we can expect: a good MO version of this question would have:
a) a lucid exposition of the basic place of Riemann surfaces in the mathematical landscape as the OP understands it;
b) pointed questions.

In this way, anyone who attempted to answer the question would have a fair idea of what level to pitch the answer, what doesn't need to be explained, and if there is a particular aspect which is of more interest to the poster.

Instead, we have a short and uninformative quotation completely out of context, which happens to come from a certain source, but you would be bound to find similar sentences in about any book on the subject, and the vaguest of questions. Leaving cross-posting issues aside, let's not pretend that this looks anything like a good MO question!

Scott Morrison comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16097)

2011-09-15T12:22:42-07:00

I've written privately to Sadiq, explaining our opposition to crossposting.

quid comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16096)

2011-09-15T12:06:53-07:00

In my opinion the question in isolation is not all that problematic. What is problematic is the crossposting. Under normal circumstances I would not downvote a rather new user for a cross post; I hardly ever downvote anything, I believe this was my second ever serious downvote (all others, of the still few, where some up/down sorting in CW lists).

However, yesterday we had from the OP

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/75366/primer-on-complex-analysis-and-riemann-surfaces-for-undergraduate-physics-theor

A crosspost! Where I said: "... the readership has considerable overlap. And, crosspostings are strongly discouraged; in particular when they happen in parallel. What is alright is to first ask on math.SE and then after some time (days, a week) here, taking the already obtained info into account and best linking to the other question"

Six upvotes to that, so also visibly for the OP not some unique opinion, and the OP acknowledge having read it.

Now, again a crosspost, with three hours delay. And indeed that post had an answer, which the OP did not like as it took the question a bit differently. So, the clrarified version had not time on math.SE at all. And, perhaps "days, a week" is a bit on the long side, but please at least 24 hours or a US-day.

And before that:

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/75343/semi-off-topic-tangentially-related-post-an-mo-equivalent-site-for-theoretica

On which the OP did not even follow up, the motivation is still totally unclear to me, but what is clear is that Kaveh did not appreciate it at all.

And finally

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/64313/primer-on-complex-analysis-and-riemann-surfaces-for-undergraduate-physics-theor

the comment thread to Adam Smith's answer.

I frequently argued in favor of being welcoming and also try to live up to this, but everything has limits.

quid comments on "historical basis rieman surfaces" (16095)

2011-09-15T11:44:10-07:00

This is the meta for http://mathoverflow.net/questions/75504/historical-basis-and-mathematical-significance-of-riemann-surfaces-closed and related issues.

I give my thoughts in a response, I just wanted to create it quickly before the comments 'explode' further.