tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Poll question about Wolfram) Sun, 04 Nov 2018 23:15:58 -0800 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.1.9 & Feed Publisher François G. Dorais comments on "Poll question about Wolfram" (9387) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9387#Comment_9387 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9387#Comment_9387 Mon, 04 Oct 2010 06:06:52 -0700 François G. Dorais (I just closed the poll as per Andrew's instructions.)

]]>
Andrew Stacey comments on "Poll question about Wolfram" (9386) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9386#Comment_9386 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9386#Comment_9386 Mon, 04 Oct 2010 05:35:39 -0700 Andrew Stacey Well, there hasn't been the discussion that I'd hoped to prompt - either on whether or not correcting such bizarre statements was a reasonable thing to do (as was claimed in the initial round of comments to the question) or whether or not such polls are a reasonable thing to have on occasion on MO.

Those issues apart, I do feel that such things should have a finite lifetime. Closing doesn't actually have any effect whatsoever (it doesn't even stop it getting bumped to the front page). So I would ask that this now be locked and that a note be put at the bottom saying:

This poll has now run its course. The final tally can be seen below.

The wording is intended to be as neutral as possible. I'm happy for any better suggestions to be used.

(A moderator is needed to lock the post, I believe.)

]]>
HJRW comments on "Poll question about Wolfram" (9368) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9368#Comment_9368 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9368#Comment_9368 Sat, 02 Oct 2010 15:58:41 -0700 HJRW As one who voted to close, apologies for not joining the discussion first. My reasoning is well summarised by Andy's comment above: closing doesn't prevent people from voting, but does contain any potential problem.

]]>
Andrew Stacey comments on "Poll question about Wolfram" (9357) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9357#Comment_9357 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9357#Comment_9357 Sat, 02 Oct 2010 11:43:39 -0700 Andrew Stacey I think that implicit in the word "silliness" is that there will be occasions where the badges are meaningless and that it would be more bother than it's worth to fix them for these cases.

On a slightly different part of the issue, I disagree with the reason for closing. "Subjective and argumentative"? Given the amount of discussion some other questions have generated, I don't think that "argumentative" is fair. "Subjective" I guess is "by design", but I'd rather that it had been closed as "off topic" meaning, "We don't want such polls here.". Also, I wish that those who closed it had come here and expressed their opinions first.

(I may well agree with such opinions, but as I said above: some people saw some merit in this question and their opinions have not been taken in to account.)

]]>
Jonas Meyer comments on "Poll question about Wolfram" (9355) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9355#Comment_9355 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9355#Comment_9355 Sat, 02 Oct 2010 00:41:05 -0700 Jonas Meyer Andrew Stacey comments on "Poll question about Wolfram" (9354) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9354#Comment_9354 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9354#Comment_9354 Sat, 02 Oct 2010 00:20:42 -0700 Andrew Stacey I notice that it's now been closed which, as I wrote above, makes absolutely no difference to this question whatsoever!

I'd also like to say that I'm not convinced of the value of this question, but there were sufficient voices in favour (with sufficient reputation) of some sort of question that it seemed worth doing the experiment in actuality rather than discussing a virtual question (which no two people would quite have agreed upon).

I certainly don't understand the "abuse of the badge system" remark. I thought that the general consensus was that the badges were so meaningless that they could safely be ignored. If you look at my questions and answers, then half of my +20 votes questions have been closed (and a fourth I tried to close but was out-voted), and you have to go down to about my 20th answer to get one that I would actually rate as having any worthwhile mathematical content (why doesn't homology have a coproduct, in case my count is off).

I don't know if this says more about me, about MO, or something else entirely, but over on tex.SX, I completely ignore the reputation and badges number. And I do that unconsciously, it's a number that has absolutely no meaning for me. I can't remember from one day to the next what my reputation there is. Here, I notice when it goes up or down, and I know before I've looked if I've had any down-votes. Again, this is unconscious. However, even though I notice my reputation here, I certainly don't notice any badges (once I'd capitulated and gotten a silver badge, that is).

]]>
WillieWong comments on "Poll question about Wolfram" (9352) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9352#Comment_9352 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9352#Comment_9352 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:01:31 -0700 WillieWong @Cam: and who will be our CowboyNeal?

]]>
WillieWong comments on "Poll question about Wolfram" (9351) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9351#Comment_9351 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9351#Comment_9351 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:00:49 -0700 WillieWong Huh, I chanced on Eric's Treasure Trove when I was in high school. And I remember the times when it was only partly accessible. But only now did I learn about the CRC dead-tree version and find out the reason for the access restrictions and subsequent outage. Hats off to Eric and anyone who originally contributed to the project!

]]>
Ryan Budney comments on "Poll question about Wolfram" (9350) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9350#Comment_9350 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9350#Comment_9350 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:41:51 -0700 Ryan Budney
FYI, before it became associated with Wolfram I was one (of many) authors. Eric sent me a t-shirt for my efforts - and I think a copy of the 1st printing of the encyclopedia, too. He was very pleasant to deal with, and only let me put something into the encyclopedia provided I could explain it to him first. I noticed that some of my more colourful expressions like "algebraic topology is the study of holes" were purged from the encyclopedia on the purchased-by-Wolfram edit. ]]>
Will Jagy comments on "Poll question about Wolfram" (9349) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9349#Comment_9349 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9349#Comment_9349 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:32:54 -0700 Will Jagy
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/wolfram/

No animals were harmed during the making of this post. ]]>
Cam McLeman comments on "Poll question about Wolfram" (9347) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9347#Comment_9347 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9347#Comment_9347 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:29:29 -0700 Cam McLeman
It would be kind of a neat addition, and not too frivolous, to have little non-intrusive polls running now and then on the side of the main page, but this debate doesn't strike me as a topic so particularly compelling as to merit a run-around of the site's design and intent. In short, I don't think it's a precedent we want to set. ]]>
Jonas Meyer comments on "Poll question about Wolfram" (9345) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9345#Comment_9345 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9345#Comment_9345 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 12:51:26 -0700 Jonas Meyer
Frivolous as it is, this is also sort of an abuse of the badge system. ]]>
Andrew Stacey comments on "Poll question about Wolfram" (9342) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9342#Comment_9342 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9342#Comment_9342 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:56:44 -0700 Andrew Stacey It did occur to me that actually closing the question will have no effect whatsoever as far as collecting votes is concerned. But I think that closing it would be interpreted as a message as to whether or not this sort of thing is acceptable or not which ought to be discussed before action is taken.

]]>
Andy Putman comments on "Poll question about Wolfram" (9339) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9339#Comment_9339 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9339#Comment_9339 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:03:19 -0700 Andy Putman Andrew Stacey comments on "Poll question about Wolfram" (9336) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9336#Comment_9336 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram/?Focus=9336#Comment_9336 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 01:38:11 -0700 Andrew Stacey I unilaterally turned http://mathoverflow.net/questions/40709/is-the-notation-fx-deprecated-by-professional-mathematicians-as-claimed-by in to a poll question. Anyone who wishes to keelhaul me for doing so can do so here.

]]>