tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Computational neuroscience questions)

Alexander Woo comments on "Computational neuroscience questions" (11456)

Alexander Woo — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 19:39:14 -0800

I think the issue of applied applied mathematics (as opposed to theoretical applied mathematics - the distinction I'm trying to make is whether you aim to prove any theorems) is an important question for Mathoverflow to settle, and I definitely think it is better to settle it with some examples rather than abstractly.

So... Please - give us some real examples to think about this issue!

Please note that there are really 3 possible answers, not 2:

1) They are acceptable, and get answers.

2) They are acceptable, but no one reading this site cares enough to answer.

3) The are not acceptable.

Andrew Stacey comments on "Computational neuroscience questions" (11410)

Andrew Stacey — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:57:07 -0800

I agree with Anton, particularly for one coming from outside mathematics and so who might need help with phrasing and so forth to get it easily read by mathematicians. If the LaTeX is really heavy, I guess it could be cross-posted on faketestsite? Or you could use one of the LaTeX->image servers that are around (not that I approve of that).

Incidentally, did you mean "vetting" rather than "venting"?

I do agree with Pete about usernames. It may be old-fashioned of me, but if I know someone's name then I'm much more likely to respond favourably to their questions.

Anton Geraschenko comments on "Computational neuroscience questions" (11406)

Anton Geraschenko — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:29:29 -0800

why don't you simply try out one of your questions on the site?

While I think this is a good idea, I do think there's some value to vetting a questionable question here on meta first. If the original formulation posted on MO contains some point of confusion, it is sometimes surprisingly difficult to eliminate, even if it is fixed in the question. Comments and answers posted before the correction can make it hard to get people to focus on the corrected version.

(Edit: yes, I did mean "vetting" instead of "venting". I guess that was a Freudian slip about how meta is sometimes used :-).)

Pete L. Clark comments on "Computational neuroscience questions" (11401)

Pete L. Clark — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:36:44 -0800

@kvphxga: first, I would view it as a favor if you would pick a more pronounceable and memorable user name. Your actual name, perhaps.

With regard to your questions: why don't you simply try out one of your questions on the site? Take time to write it carefully and in a way that would be most appealing to a mathematical audience. If it turns out that it is not appropriate, it may be closed, but there is no harm in trying.

WillieWong comments on "Computational neuroscience questions" (11391)

WillieWong — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 05:03:19 -0800

Unfortunately, I don't think MathJax is enabled on Meta. But most of us young ones (and quite a few of the old guards) are perfectly capable of reading and parsing LaTeX in our heads, so just go ahead and type it. (It may not render, but it will get your point across.)

kvphxga comments on "Computational neuroscience questions" (11390)

kvphxga — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 03:40:16 -0800

Can I use LaTeX here?

WillieWong comments on "Computational neuroscience questions" (11389)

WillieWong — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 03:27:37 -0800

Without saying more about what kind of questions you intend to ask, it is hard to say whether your question will be appropriate.

Perhaps you may want to show us one of the questions you intend to ask? That will allow us to better form our judgments.

Thanks for asking!

kvphxga comments on "Computational neuroscience questions" (11388)

kvphxga — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 03:06:16 -0800

Hi every one,

My interest is computational neuroscience, and I have a lot of theoretical questions.Though they may be simple and just basic tools for a mathematician, they may have nice and exciting meanings for a neuroscientist, and the results may be exciting even for mathematicians.
In fact my question is not associated with my own filed, but with all theoretical branches of science that apply mathematics. I understand the tendency of math people not to be annoyed with unrelated and obvious questions. But I'm talking about a research level theoretical question, that's just not pure mathematics. I think it's really beneficial for both of us. We can take advantage of expert mathematicians responses, and you enjoy the discussion.

Regards,