tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (reedited)

David Hansen comments on "reedited" (13032)

2011-02-02T12:39:25-08:00

Minasteris, I don't think it's really necessary to broadcast every time you edit this question. It will be seen. As people have pointed out, it seems to be a rather difficult circle of questions; the lack of any prompt answers probably reflects this fact!

minasteris comments on "reedited" (13031)

2011-02-02T11:19:53-08:00

I have added 2 more questions 5) especially the last I consider that maybe some could have a partial answer, regards Asterios.

minasteris comments on "reedited" (12899)

2011-01-29T08:21:03-08:00

MO Scribe if you or somebody else learns something about my question please inform me. Are of the same difficulty the two questions about the density that I added?

minasteris comments on "reedited" (12898)

2011-01-29T07:13:03-08:00

Dear MO Scribe thank you ,I will follow your advice.I have already started to read some stuff(already read Brun's work) about sieve theory such as Greaves book, Goldston and Yildirm's work etc. I am a graduate student and i really consider to have a phd at sieve theory but in my country there are not any experts on this field . For this reason I surch for experts in sieve theory....
Maybe some day i should learn your real name, regards Asterios

MO Scribe comments on "reedited" (12893)

2011-01-28T18:28:53-08:00

Dear minasteris, I'm going to politely suggest that you do not start emailing eminent number theorists. I have a few people in mind to ask, and when I next see them I might bring it up. (I'm pretty sure that if you email them directly your chance of getting a response is pretty close to zero.)

minasteris comments on "reedited" (12869)

2011-01-27T23:40:49-08:00

Could someone propose some well known sieve experts (alive)? I can see some famous mathematicians as users at MO aren't they sieve experts?

minasteris comments on "reedited" (12868)

2011-01-27T23:08:55-08:00

I really want to thank MO Scribe because he was the first that payed attention to my question and tried to make the deeper meaning of it known with his reformulated question.

Emerton comments on "reedited" (12861)

2011-01-27T16:32:34-08:00

Dear Todd,

Sorry, I didn't mean to make so much of your comparison to RH; I realize you didn't mean to put them in the same league. And I'm quite possibly guilty of describing it as an open problem. But while I do think it is open in a literal sense, I'm not sure if it intrinsically open, so to speak; meaning that it might be a question which is within reach of an expert --- but it might not. (This was more or less the content of MO Scribe's question: is this question just in reach, or just out of reach?) In practice, I don't think the right expert is active on MO, so we may not find out, at least for a while. But it is because of the possibility that it is within reach that I voted to reopen.

Anyway, sorry again to be taking your time with slightly silly comments!

Best wishes,

Matthew

Todd Trimble comments on "reedited" (12859)

2011-01-27T12:14:53-08:00

Dear Matthew,

Perhaps I was confused or misremembered: I thought someone somewhere had said it's an open question, which would rule it out as not appropriate for MO. That's all I was saying when I compared it to RH. But anyway, yes, let's see now what happens.

Best,

Todd

Emerton comments on "reedited" (12856)

2011-01-27T11:06:43-08:00

Dear Todd,

I don't think it's quite fair to compare this question to RH. I can imagine that if a hard-core seive expert saw it, they might be able to recognize right away whether it is within reach or not. I just don't think that any such people are reading MO, because if they were, they would have commented on or answered MO Scribe's reformulated question.

Anyway, since it now seems to be open, and we can see what happens!

Best wishes,

Matthew

Todd Trimble comments on "reedited" (12824)

2011-01-27T05:03:05-08:00

I believe Matthew makes a good point. The question is interesting under MO Scribe's reformulation. But then, the Riemann Hypothesis is also quite interesting. That doesn't make either question suitable for MO.

Harald Hanche-Olsen comments on "reedited" (12822)

2011-01-27T04:05:27-08:00

@Tom: If I have read things correctly, the question had already been open for about 8 hours when you wrote the above.

Tom LaGatta comments on "reedited" (12818)

2011-01-26T21:42:22-08:00

Come on, folks, please cast a vote to open. The question is reasonable, and it doesn't need to keep taking so much of our time on meta.

Emerton comments on "reedited" (12817)

2011-01-26T19:40:30-08:00

Dear Minasteris,

I happen to know who MO Scribe is, and he is a very strong number theorist. I think that it is best to accept his suggestion that your question is on the cusp of what is known/provable. I have voted to reopen your question, but I don't expect it to be answered, at least not anytime soon. While you can certainly put a bounty on your question, I would be surprised if it will make any difference.

It's not that your question is uninteresting; indeed, as became clear (to me, at least) after MO Scribe's reformulation, it is quite interesting. It's just that it also seems to be quite difficult!

Best wishes,

Matthew Emerton

Todd Trimble comments on "reedited" (12812)

2011-01-26T15:52:36-08:00

Yes, Asterios, I believe it is clear that you are the author.

minasteris comments on "reedited" (12808)

2011-01-26T15:23:20-08:00

i do not care about the reputation points but is it clear that i have made this question?

Gerry Myerson comments on "reedited" (12807)

2011-01-26T15:17:03-08:00

Question 49647 has gone through 17 revisions. Somewhere in the MO documentation you will find that any question that has had 8 or more revisions (I think that's the magic number) gets classified community wiki automatically by the software. So whether it is wrong is moot.

minasteris comments on "reedited" (12803)

2011-01-26T14:08:33-08:00

Is it wrong that it was made community wiki?

minasteris comments on "reedited" (12802)

2011-01-26T13:53:49-08:00

Is it good to start a bounty?

minasteris comments on "reedited" (12797)

2011-01-26T12:15:29-08:00

Thank you

Todd Trimble comments on "reedited" (12796)

2011-01-26T12:13:52-08:00

Asterios: let's wait and see whether others want to reopen. By the way, I later retracted my claim of easiness.

minasteris comments on "reedited" (12792)

2011-01-26T11:40:38-08:00

Dear Todd
The answer on what you said is easy (and it is the point of the question that i have done from the first time) :Do we really know that for any a it is an open problem?if we dont why this question should not be opened until someone expert that really knows gives an answer. I have seen examples of questions at MO for example http://mathoverflow.net/questions/39210/solve-in-positive-integers-nmm1 that someone answered that it is a well known open problem.Is my question a well known open problem? because if it is not to propose a new open problem is something important , i guess, and it is not the right treatment to have the first edit of this closed, if it is a known open problem then it should be reopened until someone says that it is a well known open problem and we know this and that on this direction.
Regards Asterios

Todd Trimble comments on "reedited" (12788)

2011-01-26T11:23:55-08:00

minasteris: if five people want to reopen it, then five people will.

Other than that, I think (Matthew) Emerton has already explained very nicely what the issues were. It seems to be the case that it is an open problem [hence not suitable for MO -- this site is for questions that the questioner thinks someone will be able to answer, not open problems], but also that it follows from standard conjectures. There were also some issues with how the original question was formulated; MO Scribe presented a more detailed and motivated question which better places it in the matrix of modern-day mathematics. You gave a nod to his formulation, but otherwise the question is about the same as in all the other questions you asked, and so I don't anticipate that the outcome will be any different.

minasteris comments on "reedited" (12764)

2011-01-26T06:56:44-08:00

After Emertons propose at a previous discusion http://tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/916/delete-and-reopen/#Item_8 i decided to delete all the other questions an keep the first with all the information needed http://mathoverflow.net/questions/49647/finite-or-infinite-reedited-closed .Is the form acceptable and could be voted to be reopened? If not ok i just wanted to have one version of my question undeleted .Thank you.