tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature")

Yemon Choi comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7393)

Yemon Choi — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:08:09 -0700

At the risk of bringing to the surface things best left in the depths, +1 to VP for the Borges reference/analogy.

Andy Putman comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7270)

Andy Putman — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:42:33 -0700

I also support closing this question. In fact, since there hasn't really been any opposition to closing it, I think I'll vote to do so.

VP comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7266)

VP — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:03:42 -0700

That question has been an unmitigated disaster from the beginning. It reminds me of the Borges taxonomy of animals.

Noah Snyder comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7260)

Noah Snyder — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:55:42 -0700

I don't like this question, it's way way overbroad and the main example is completely wrong. I'll wait a little while though to vote for closing to see if a consensus arises.

Yemon Choi comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7255)

Yemon Choi — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:38:55 -0700

Am currently enduring (la vie est dur!) restricted internet access so can't comment too much on the original point of the thread, or indeed MO or meta, as much as I'd like right now. But I'd like to echo Andrea's comment.

Scott Morrison comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7221)

Scott Morrison — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 07:20:42 -0700

This thread has gone off-topic. If anyone has complaints abouts other users' behaviour, please contact the moderators directly, at moderators@mathoverflow.net.

Storkle comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7220)

Storkle — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 07:01:55 -0700

It wasn't intended as a personal attack (and there's nothing particularly personal in the details---just what's available here online at MO). It's a not-as-polite reminder, in the spirit of Matthew Emerton's available here

http://tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/225/fpqc-moratorium/#Item_0

that Harry would be better off focusing on actual mathematics. Certainly it's not my intention to embarrass Harry any more than is inevitable. Really, it's a shame that nothing ever came of Harry's resolution to stop commenting and focus just on mathematics. I believe he promised this in response to Kevin Lin's suggestion here

http://tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/191/someone-just-downvoted-four-of-my-posts-in-four-minutes/#Item_5

But unfortunately Harry later deleted his promise, and seems to have completely forgotten about it.

As for the point of writing this here: well, it's may be a vain hope, but I really do hope that publicly reminding him of this will make him think more about what to spend his time on.

Andrea comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7217)

Andrea — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:09:12 -0700

I don't have a strong opinion about the actual question, which I have not even read yet. But I see no point in turning this Meta thread into a personal attack to Harry.

robingirard comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7216)

robingirard — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 05:58:08 -0700

@Tom Boardman maybe mathematics stackexchange will be better. I agree for closing but I can't do it myself :) In addition, I don't really like the kind of direction the discussion takes... to state the faq: "Be nice. Treat others with the same respect you'd want them to treat you. We're all here to learn together." If the question I asked is a troll we should remove it rapidly :) sorry about that.

Tom Boardman comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7215)

Tom Boardman — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 05:29:22 -0700

That said, I can see where the querrant was going with this: from a pedagogical perspective it is often nice to have *rigid* (ie. not one of a continuum that happens to occurr in nature, like an o.d.e. that describes plant growth), *complex* (ie. not addition) structures arising both in mathematics and nature; simply to make students go 'wow'. And though I could conceive of a fix for it, I don't really see the point: it is (for the reasons JBL stated) not for this site- an ammended version, on the other hand, would work brilliantly on the proposed stack exchange maths site, set to go into beta by the end of the week, see http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/3355/mathematics for details.

Tom Boardman comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7214)

Tom Boardman — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 05:18:38 -0700

@JBL +1 The problem is, the transitive closure of 'in' puts \Cup{Mathematics} 'in' nature (cf. the somewhat wry answer on rocks: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/30269/mathematics-in-nature/30310#30310 ).

Storkle comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7213)

Storkle — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 05:10:53 -0700

@JBL: I don't care one way or the other about whether or not this question is closed.

@Harry: "Perhaps you should stop making assumptions about how much time I spend on mathematics. Perhaps you should realize that it's not really fair to expect me to tell you one mathematical thing you don't know while I'm still (admittedly) learning the basics."

I didn't make any assumptions about how much time you spend on mathematics; it's not necessary to do so b/c it's obvious that, letting x be the amount of time you spend on mathematics, x+(substantial amount of time spent aggravating people on MO)>>x. The sooner (substantial amount of time spent aggravating people on MO) approaches zero, the faster you'll be able to tell us something interesting (and actually, I'm looking forward to hearing something interesting, so get on with it).

jbl comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7212)

jbl — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 05:02:01 -0700

While I'm usually all in favor of people ragging on Harry Gindi ( ;) ), I agree with him. Quoting the FAQ, "MathOverflow is not an encyclopedia." I'm skeptical that this question is "well-defined" or "a research-level question" or "a math question," and I don't see mathematicians as having any notable expertise in answering it.

Harry Gindi comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7211)

Harry Gindi — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 05:00:26 -0700

@Robin: Whether or not you find the answers interesting does not mean that you are interested in getting any specific answers. Are you as interested in getting an answer to this question as someone else is in getting an answer to a question about actual math?

As far as mathematical content goes, there is no reason to believe that mathematicians should be able to give better answers than naturalists. There is nothing in the question that requires any sort of expertise in mathematics.

If you look at some of the better big-list questions, they often have something to do with how mathematicians practice mathematics (or give information that could be applied by a mathematician). I think that this sort of big-list, where it's something along the lines of "write down a bunch of instances of X" (where X is some curiosity related only tangentially to mathematics) is inappropriate for MO.

robingirard comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7210)

robingirard — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 04:34:27 -0700

Hi all, before closing the question, do you have suggestions to improve it?

@Harry says: "I've seen thusfar are not insightful or interesting".
I may not be at your level in mathematic but I found some answers interesting. Hence it seems that I am not the only one. Can you expand the ideas that make you think what you think ? for example, how can you say that it has almost no mathematical content ? how do you define mathematical content? Do think we need "insightful" answers only on MO? I am ready to close the question myself if I can heard good reasons :)

@Harry: What do you mean by "the question seems like a fishing expedition." Do you mean I ask question without interest for the answers ? (which is false, as I said I found answers interesting). Do you think the question is not focused enough ? Do you have suggestions? Can you give more details on your feeling about the question and anwsers ?

Harry Gindi comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7208)

Harry Gindi — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:47:55 -0700

@Storkle: Perhaps you should keep this discussion on topic. Perhaps you should stop making assumptions about how much time I spend on mathematics. Perhaps you should realize that it's not really fair to expect me to tell you one mathematical thing you don't know while I'm still (admittedly) learning the basics.

Maybe instead of attacking me, you could explain why you think this question is worth losing your composure over.

Storkle comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7207)

Storkle — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:36:38 -0700

Here's a topic for discussion: perhaps Harry could spend less time clopping around MO in his jackboots, and more time doing actual mathematics? Perhaps we, the mathematical community, will find him less annoying once he's managed to tell us one mathematical thing we didn't already know? Better: maybe having once managed to discover something nobody else knew before, he'll dislodge the gigantic chip from his shoulder and realize what's worth fighting over and what's not?

Harry Gindi comments on "I propose that we close: "mathematics in nature"" (7206)

Harry Gindi — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:28:18 -0700

The topic mathematics in nature seems to have little to no mathematical content. The answers I've seen thusfar are not insightful or interesting, and the question seems like a fishing expedition.

I have voted to close.

Discuss!