tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Reopen a small structure question)

quid comments on "Reopen a small structure question" (21279)

quid — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:42:05 -0800

@grp: I do not think many 'historical' questions (I assume you mean posted a long time ago) were deleted recently. I only (can) follow this in detail since a bit more than a month, but the general pattern during this time is that something is deleted either 'as soon as possible' (that is two days plus a little, after closure) or [more rarely] if it for some reason (re)gains visibility (that is the thing itself gets reactivated, or owner draws attention to themself in one way or another).

Mariano comments on "Reopen a small structure question" (21275)

Mariano — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:22:59 -0800

I do not like the question in its present form, but I do appreciate having been made aware of Berman's catalog. If grp can ask a sensible question whose answer can nicely include the information provided so far, I do not see any problem with deleting the current question and asking a new, better one.

grp comments on "Reopen a small structure question" (21274)

grp — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:15:00 -0800

I have some understanding with Scott Carnahan's position. If the question is not opened, I may overcome my reluctance and ask (and answer) a similar question. (The reluctance comes from a feeling that doing so is close to spamming MathOverflow with results in general algebra.) However, searching on the basis of operation tables is not yet a general feature of Internet search; making people aware of Berman's catalog and reference list is the kind of service this forum should provide, and I regret not having done so when the question was open.

Also, I am concerned that the culture (my perception of the recent behaviour of the voting populace of MathOverflow) has turned to deleting more "historical" questions. Unless accounts are being compromised and early entries are abused, I do not see the rationale for deleting such questions. The comments provide some useful information, and there is the potential for following up with the participants in the question on similar material; deleting the question removes access to such information. I will not impugn the voters here as I do not yet know their motivations, but I will sound the warning that the smell of this is not far from the smell of in-field censorship. I ask for caution and expressed rationale and some form of consensual policy from those who vote to delete things which are close to honest reference requests. Poor as this question is worded, I do not see it as deserving of deletion.

I welcome reasoned opinions to the contrary.

Gerhard "Also Don't Mind Support, Too" Paseman, 2013.01.28

Scott Carnahan comments on "Reopen a small structure question" (21273)

Scott Carnahan — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 07:35:42 -0800

I am not feeling particularly sympathetic to the poster of the question, for two reasons. First, the question sounds like a slightly more sophisticated version of "where do groups of order 3 appear in mathematics?". There seems to be a hazy line between asking for motivation and going on an open-ended fishing expedition, and I think this falls pretty squarely on the side of the latter. Second, I feel that vzn (the question-poser) is not being very cooperative by writing the following sentence fragment:

may edit this question later to describe at least one very specific case where it appears in theoretical computer science, but for now am leaving it open so as not to bias possible answers.

I can't model other people's cognition too well, but my personal experience suggests that I am better at recalling examples when other examples are given, even if they are not particularly closely related. While I am personally unlikely to think of an answer to this question, I find it slightly annoying that the question has been unanswered for over a year, but vzn still can't be bothered to drop a more substantial hint.

quid comments on "Reopen a small structure question" (21271)

quid — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:36:06 -0800

@grp: I suggest you just ask the question you would like to answer (including what vzn is interested in) for general reference, and then answer it.

On occassion the opinion was expressed that this was the better way to go in such situations. The current one seems a quite extreme case as OP is very old.

Andreas Blass comments on "Reopen a small structure question" (21270)

Andreas Blass — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:55:22 -0800

I just voted to undelete.

voloch comments on "Reopen a small structure question" (21269)

voloch — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:31:46 -0800

I was the last person to vote to delete. I just voted to undelete and it needs one more.

grp comments on "Reopen a small structure question" (21268)

grp — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:54:29 -0800

Indeed, a few seconds before I started this thread, it was open. I hope it will be undeleted and reopened. I think people who are trying to find more about certain algebraic structures can be directed to a reference such as that of Joel Berman, and that one of MathOverflow's main purposes is to provide such direction, as it would for most reasonable reference requests.

Gerhard "Would Prefer Reopening To Repeating" Paseman, 2013.01.27

Will Jagy comments on "Reopen a small structure question" (21267)

Will Jagy — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:04:10 -0800

i see. Confusing. Original was all January 2012, a full year ago. Edited a few hours ago, and deleted one hour ago.

grp comments on "Reopen a small structure question" (21266)

grp — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:52:20 -0800

In http://mathoverflow.net/questions/86391/what-is-this-small-3-element-quasigroup-what-is-it-used-for-closed , a reasonable question is asked, but the choice of wording is unfortunate, and this wording shows little or no mathematical maturity.

I request this question be edited and reopened. A suggestion for more acceptable wording is: "In my studies I came across the following binary operation table on a three element set. The resulting operation is not associative, so the related structure is not a group or even a semigroup. What kind of structure is it, and where can I find out more about it?"
Put the table somewhere below this paragraph. Also, another paragraph giving more context and motivation would be welcome. I recommend the reference-request and general-algebra tags forthis question. The title wording might be changed to replace semigroup with structure.

When it is reopened, I will post a reference to Joel Berman's catalog of such structures, and mention the references he provides for this structure.

Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2013.01.27