tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts)

joro comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15784)

2011-08-25T06:56:52-07:00

FYI the paper appeared at http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/mamarimhtml/pmn.html

Formulae for the Number of Partitions of n into at most m parts(Using the Quasi-Polynomial Ansatz)

Tom LaGatta comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15564)

2011-08-13T15:28:24-07:00

François:

Generally, there is no reason for posters to feel stigmatized when their questions are closed.

You may claim that there's "no reason" to feel stigmatized, but remember that all people feel a little embarrassed when they are publicly shamed, no matter how trivial the transgression.

François G. Dorais comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15559)

2011-08-12T10:23:29-07:00

An aside on closing and deleting...

The only effect of closing a question is to prevent further answers from being added. There are many legitimate reasons to do that. (Albeit, the stock reasons that the software provides are not always self-explanatory.) Generally, there is no reason for posters to feel stigmatized when their questions are closed. Moreover, closing should never be used in a punitive manner -- such inappropriate actions will be notoced by the moderators who will then take appropriate measures. (Downvotes are the appropriate way to express disapproval of a question or answer.)

On the other hand, deletion is a much more drastic measure that should be used with great care. Worse still is deletion by way of flagging as spam/offensive, which comes with an additional 100 pt penalty to the poster. Needless to say that this should be reserved for extreme cases.

Storkle comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15558)

2011-08-12T09:48:22-07:00

Will,

I (third?) the thanks for you sending email directly to DZ, which, in light of the resolution it brought, is the most productive contribution anyone has made to this thread. I'm also very grateful to Nilima for the original suggestion.

quid comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15557)

2011-08-12T09:19:25-07:00

Will Jagy, thanks a lot for your initiative on this!

Gerald Edgar, it might be a bit ironic, but if you read the meta thread and study the timeline you might notice that it is you who is to a considerable extent responsible for the reopening. Since I consider the final turn of the discussion, for various reasons (whether the question is open or not is a detail), as quite fortunate, I am (at least in retrospect) also grateful for your contribution.

The precedence-issue is certainly something to keep in mind, but then I think one also should not overdramatize this risk. For one thing, as François Dorais mentioned a while ago: C'est l'exception qui confirme la règle.

Looking back at the discussion I can see points where I could and should have been less confrontational. I appologize to those negatively affected by this.

Hailong Dao comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15555)

2011-08-12T07:20:55-07:00

Dear Joro,

I think the heated nature of this conversation has given you a too negative impression of how the process works. Usually most questions are closed with justified reasons (by the way, to vote to close you only need 3K). In addition, anyone can open a meta thread to keep a question open (a very recent example is this one. Finally, deletion is quite rare, I have never voted to delete one, and even in this case most people disagreed with deletion.

After all, the question is now open, even though many people (myself included) think it is not an appropriate use of MO (Of course, as Professor Kalai rightly pointed out, it is a subjective opinion).

The article he will write might asymetrically hurt MO's reputation more than say 100 open questions with negative votes where cranks give clearly wrong proofs of famous conjectures.

The strength of MO lies in its ability to answer (not too difficult) technical questions reasonably well, since getting stuck is such a frequent experience in our life. If it keeps doing that job, it will be quite hard for an article to hurt its reputation, even if it is written by someone of Professor Zeilberger's stature and reputation in the mathematical community.

geraldedgar comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15554)

2011-08-12T07:05:48-07:00

Question is open! Future users may now cite this question as evidence for "why my post should not be closed".

WillieWong comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15553)

2011-08-12T06:16:49-07:00

@joro: While I agree with your sentiments in your last post, I have to point out that

In addition you can't technically stop a motivated crank because at least of (open) proxies and one time accounts.

is rather besides the point. In regards to crank the moderation of the community should aim at effectively stop not completely stop. If it means the moderators having to play whack-a-mole for a few weeks, so be it.

(This also reminds me of an after-dinner chat at a workshop a few years ago, where from the shared experiences it was revealed that mathematicians are often automatically washed from serving jury duty because prosecutors know that mathematicians and physicists tend to confuse beyond reasonable doubt with absolute certainty and 5-sigma level of confidence respectively.)

joro comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15551)

2011-08-12T02:38:54-07:00

May I ask 10K+ users for more tolerance when closing/deleting questions? Suppose DZ asked anonymously and just before deleting his unanswered question someone wrongly insulted him badly. The article he will write might asymetrically hurt MO's reputation more than say 100 open questions with negative votes where cranks give clearly wrong proofs of famous conjectures. In addition you can't technically stop a motivated crank because at least of (open) proxies and one time accounts.

François G. Dorais comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15550)

2011-08-11T20:12:40-07:00

I had to look it up. To save others some trouble, here is what the OED says:

state of the art: the current stage of development of a practical or technological subject; freq. (esp. in attrib. use) implying the use of the latest techniques in a product or activity.

I guess Noah is correct, though the phrase is frequently used to mean something stronger.

Noah Snyder comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15548)

2011-08-11T20:02:42-07:00

Doesn't "state of the art" just mean "what you can do with known methods"?

Anyway, I don't think this question if reopened will attract much more attention. It already has an accepted answer, so it won't pop up to the main page very often.

Hailong Dao comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15547)

2011-08-11T19:56:02-07:00

I agree with François. Also, please note that the first reopen vote was a mistake, see the 21st comment of the original question.

François G. Dorais comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15546)

2011-08-11T19:49:19-07:00

I agree that the question should not be deleted, but I don't understand why it should be reopened. The challenge has been won and it is now past due anyway. What benefit would new answers have?

Also, I think that Noah's edit reads a bit much into Zeilberger's explanation: there is nothing about the "state of the art" in what Zeilberger wrote, it looks like he only wanted to know whether computing p_60(10^100) was doable using known methods.

Todd Trimble comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15545)

2011-08-11T19:43:52-07:00

Dear Storkle: I agree, let's not worry about it. Despite some heat throughout the exchange, I think just about every one who participated in the thread is reasonable enough that we can all just metaphorically shake hands, take something useful away from this, and move on. At least I hope there are no permanent hard feelings.

Storkle comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15544)

2011-08-11T19:34:25-07:00

Todd,

Perhaps I was mistaken, but because of Nilima's statement

"One should ask them outright, if their thoughts are of interest. No, queries on meta don't translate to asking outright - it is conceivable that he does not wish to get embroiled in this rather public discussion."

I assumed that the word "outright" (as used by Nilima) meant a direct query by email, phone, or in person. Perhaps you thought the bit "queries on meta" was meant to be interpreted as distinct from queries on main MO, and I think that's a reasonable interpretation, but probably not what Nilima meant (was it?). Probably it's not worth worrying about too much.

Todd Trimble comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15543)

2011-08-11T19:30:37-07:00

I am also happy to renounce some of my earlier words. I thank Will Jagy for taking the initiative here, and I am very glad Professor Zeilberger responded.

Noah Snyder comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15542)

2011-08-11T19:20:23-07:00

Edited and voted to reopen.

Hailong Dao comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15541)

2011-08-11T19:15:31-07:00

Dear Will, thank you for the great work!

I think this thread has served some really useful purpose. Next time we are in this situation this one can be used to remind us that: 1) Some preemptive editing of controversial questions could be really helpful; 2) Most of the drama could be our own creation; 3) A simple solution like what Will did could save a lot of troubles.

Can I say one more thing: Storkle, thanks for your kind words, they made my day!

grp comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15540)

2011-08-11T18:59:31-07:00

Noah, as long as you make it clear that it is your rephrasing, I think it should have been done long ago.

I appreciate that there is an acknowledgment, if indirect. I offer my services to Prof. Zeilberger to rewrite any question he wishes to present in a form suitable for MathOverflow.

Gerhard Paseman, 2011.08.11

Will Jagy comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15539)

2011-08-11T18:59:24-07:00

Makes sense

Noah Snyder comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15538)

2011-08-11T18:47:44-07:00

I second closing the thread soon. I also think that my comments earlier in the thread were ill-advised, and given the circumstances renounce them.

The question that was meant to be asked was: "I have a new technique for computing X, and I'd like to know how it compares to known techniques. How fast is the current state of the art." Is there any objection to my editing the question by inserting something saying roughly that? (I wouldn't remove any of the current content.)

Joel Reyes Noche comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15537)

2011-08-11T18:44:13-07:00

In my opinion, this letter from Dr. Zeilberger satisfactorily explains everything. While I was originally in favor of closing the MO question, Dr. Zeilberger's reply has changed my mind. I propose that this meta thread be closed now.

DavidRoberts comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15536)

2011-08-11T18:40:48-07:00

Thank you Will. I hope this brings an end to this exciting episode.

Noah Snyder comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15535)

2011-08-11T18:39:50-07:00

Point 4 makes the whole situation make a lot more sense.

Will Jagy comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15534)

2011-08-11T18:36:59-07:00

Got a very nice answer from DZ, plus permission to post it. With that, I request this thread be closed pretty soon:

from Doron Zeilberger

date Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Dear Will,
Thanks for your Email.

1. I must confess that while I find mathoverflow very useful, I am
not that comfortable using it, and I definitely don't like the endless meta.
I have already answered Gil Kalai in

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71092/how-many-integer-partitions-of-a-googol-10100-into-at-most-60-parts

but if was not for bragging, just reporting.

2. You are welcome to post this on my behalf (I am not a registered user, and if I am I forgot
my password)

3. The motivation to my question will be described in an article, joint with Drew Sills, to be soon posted in my website and the arxiv.
In that article I will mention how useful mathoverflow and joro were.

4. I must admit that I was sure that no one will do my challenge, so it was VERY useful to know that
computing p_60(10^100) is not such a big deal. The "new" method (that goes back to Cayley, but
using computer algebra and the quasi-polynomial ansatz) is still much faster than the
generic way that joro used, but the challenge was doable, as joro demonstrated.
By hindsight, I should have known it of course, since
the generating function is a rational function, and there are poly-log algorithms for computing the
coefficients. But in the first exctiment of discovering the method, using quasi-polynomials
(see forthcoming article) I forgot this.

5. I apologize for breaking the rules of etiquette of MO. It is more inexperience and naivete then
arrogance.

Best wishes

Doron

Will Jagy comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15533)

2011-08-11T16:22:28-07:00

I sent DZ an email according to the directions on his webpage. No guarantee he will get it, read it, or do anything about it. I just asked him to post here on Meta.

Todd Trimble comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15531)

2011-08-11T15:04:56-07:00

"So you think that asking him here, on MO, counts as asking him outright?"

Well, Storkle, you're asking me outright right here, aren't you? The answer is: yes. I assume he read the comments. He is under no compunction to respond (just as no one is compelled to respond to email), but since there were repeated requests in the beginning, I think it would have been a nice gesture to do so. Don't you?

Although I've had very brief email contact with him (in response to one of his Opinions, which he gracefully acknowledged in an addendum), I don't feel I know him well enough to email about anything that's taken place here.

Will Jagy comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15529)

2011-08-11T14:18:40-07:00

Oh, yes, I do try to be polite, and I acknowledge that we on Meta or MO may not be polite all the time. But I also contact people offsite.

Storkle comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15528)

2011-08-11T14:10:35-07:00

Will, "Discussions on Meta are not actual conversations." No, they are much more public! For that reason it seems wise to be more polite to your colleagues on the internet than you are in person (especially when factoring in the additional information (inflection, body language) that is missing online, which makes misunderstandings more likely).

Will Jagy comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15527)

2011-08-11T13:59:07-07:00

When I started on MO, I would suggest this far more often, but nobody paid attention: it is really worth expanding any concern on a website to email and telephone. If DZ does not respond on MO or Meta and somebody knows him, call him. I am not disappointed in this thread. Discussions on Meta are not actual conversations. For any opinion you post, there are at least 40 regular readers who might disagree strongly. Posted discussions without actual contact are inherently unstable, tending to exhibit a "median" opinion more by exhibiting outliers than by convergence to a consensus.

Somebody email and, for that matter, call the guy. He does not know me. Meanwhile, many people do not respond to email, or do not respond in a timely manner. Just call him.

For clarification, I initially brought up this idea in terms of pairs or triples of people who had found some question of common interest on MO, why not expand to email and explore really deeply, see where it goes. That does happen sometimes.

Storkle comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15518)

2011-08-11T13:15:27-07:00

Hailong, I am, generally speaking, very impressed by your composure and congeniality!

Storkle comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15516)

2011-08-11T13:11:29-07:00

Todd, So you think that asking him here, on MO, counts as asking him outright? I'm not so sure. Certainly sending him an email or talking to him by phone or in person counts.

Storkle comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15514)

2011-08-11T13:10:31-07:00

Nilima,

I agree. There seems to be a culture clash here that is causing some confusion: some regular users are upset that DZ has been somewhat opaque about his motivation for asking and does not respond to queries publicly here or on the main site, while others (you and me, for example) are dismayed by the resulting complaints and uncharitable speculation about his motives, as we do not see that DZ has any responsibility to respond to questions posed on public threads.

I also agree with GK's perception that reactions to this question are based as much on DZ's other opinions (and Opinions) as the question itself.

Todd Trimble comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15513)

2011-08-11T12:36:17-07:00

one should drop him a note to clarify what he means. Second-guessing a colleague's thoughts is not productive. One should ask them outright

He was asked outright. Very early on. I wish he had responded, before the discussion had gone so far.

In the interest of making a positive suggestion: Gil, as a friend of DZ, would you be able to find out what his purpose was in posting? I think you tried to ask something similar in the comments; would he be more responsive in email do you think?

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15512)

2011-08-11T12:26:08-07:00

Would we speak to any colleague like this, in person, face-to-face?

One should ask them outright, if their thoughts are of interest.

DZ was asked in the comments, and he didn't respond. I don't think the analogy to face-to-face conversation holds water: in a face-to-face conversation, my first response would have been "why do you want to know? Aren't you quite familiar with techniques for solving such problems?" and none of this would have happened.

I agree that this discussion could have been more professional, and I bear part of the blame. I apologize for that. I was trying to respond to what seemed to be unprofessional behavior on DZ's part, veiled in such a way that people not familiar with the subject (and with DZ's own credentials in that subject) would not see that there was an issue. Perhaps I should have chosen my wording more carefully.

Nilima comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15511)

2011-08-11T12:15:37-07:00

I must echo the sentiments of Prof. Kalai: I remain very disappointed at how this question was treated.

The discussion on meta has made detours through attributed motives. He's been accused of self-promotion, disrespect, trolling and bragging in this thread. Would we speak to *any* colleague like this, in person, face-to-face?

DZ has not participated in this thread, and we should do him the professional courtesy of not speculating about whether he intends disrespect or self-promotion. If one is concerned about this, one should drop him a note to clarify what he means. Second-guessing a colleague's thoughts is not productive. One should ask them outright, if their thoughts are of interest. No, queries on meta don't translate to asking outright - it is conceivable that he does not wish to get embroiled in this rather public discussion.

The mathematical merits of the question remain in dispute, which should (in the spirit of mathematical openness) suggest the question remain open.

I apologize if I'm sounding old-fashioned. I do not like this (to me) unprofessional/unfriendly aspect of this site. Very disappointing indeed.

Hailong Dao comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15510)

2011-08-11T12:12:15-07:00

Storkle,

If I can turn the conversation into "amusing" mode, then I am happy!

More seriously, perhaps my point was simply: questions like these are unlikely to make the site more harmonious (largely due to our own shortcomings), so we should avoid them.

Storkle comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15509)

2011-08-11T12:04:50-07:00

Hailong,

"...the drama that follows was largely our own creation." Agreed. I don't see that DZ has done anything remotely resembling trolling MO---to me, someone who is not involved at all in the controversy over this question, all the heat is coming from the discussion of whether the question is appropriate for MO, and mostly from those against. In this context I found your previous comment "This thread presents (to me) a convincing reason that we should not encourage questions like this." quite amusing!

Hailong Dao comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15507)

2011-08-11T11:55:14-07:00

This thread presents (to me) a convincing reason that we should not encourage questions like this. Imagine if MO has a similar one every week (-:.

Having said that, I don't think we should delete the question. Although many of us, including me, believe that this question is not appropriate for MO, the drama that follows was largely our own creation. So it is a bit unfair to delete the original question. Eventually everyone will calm down, and this matter does not really deserves that much attention, and I hope we will all come to that conclusion.

@quid: to be fair, I think both sides overreact here. I agree that some of the comments following Joro's post on page 2 were unnecessarily harsh. Probably things blew up because people have been quietly discomforted by this discussion.

gilkalai comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15505)

2011-08-11T11:17:04-07:00

Dear Felipe,
I agree about this thread. In my discussion with Long I tried to edit old comments so it will not bumped up and rest in peace. I have no idea why Joro's comment invoked this new interest (and "i told you so" claims). Doron added, responding to my comment, little more information about what his new method can do. This is of some interest and I hope he will write the paper. DZ's asked a question made 2-3 comments and was not involved in this discussion at all. We had disagreement about the quality of the question but I personally thought the question was nice. It is true that several meta questions were raised from this question but we are not in agreement about the answers to these meta questions and, in any case DZ has nothing to do with this thread.

Dear Noah, I am happy to realize that you generally agree with my comments. What can I say, Doron's question is unusual and pose a test of tolerance for us guys. But I dont understand why it is trolling, I dont see why it is disrespectful, and I dont think it is an abuse of this site. We discussed some generalities here but did not reach a clear conclusion.

For the sake of full disclosure, I have to admit that Doron is my friend for more than 35 years, I like him and I learned quite a bit from him. He is certainly a colorful and often controversial member of the mathematical community. I would like to believe that had Doron done some really terrible thing, abusive, harrasive, and/or harmful, I would confront him, and even put our friendship on the line. But this innocent question is far away from such a scenario. It was a nice question which was of interest to me. I learned things in my own field that I did not know (but perhaps I am a bit rusty). And I don't see any new fact after Doron's second comment that should make any difference. In fact I think the overreaction by our community as expressed in this thread is disappointing.

quid comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15502)

2011-08-11T08:58:46-07:00

Well, perhaps those that have so much problem with this question (and related developments) could simply stop 'fanning the flames'; for example commenting on a comment two days after it was posted (in part visibly uninformed about the context), calling for deletion of a question,...

How does this saying go: if you point a finger at somebody, four point back at you.

Noah Snyder comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15499)

2011-08-11T08:39:03-07:00

I'd actually be thinking of commenting that this was one of the most virtuosic trolling performances I've seen in a long time. By that I mean someone successfully pulling an internet conversation way way off-topic and provoking strong emotional responses in the legitimate users (that is the people who regularly use the site and use it in the usual ways). The money reward, the fact that he already knew the answer, the fact that he asked a question about specific numbers instead of about an algorithm, the fact that his comments were mostly about who should "win" the reward based on having a certain number rather than about the mathematical content (that is the algorithms).

I generally agree with Gil's comments on meta, and I've mostly stayed out of this discussion because I figured there was too high a chance of Gil being right and me being wrong. But I'm quite baffled about why you're still defending DZ's actions. DZ's behavior seems to me to be clear abuse of the site and disrespectful of everyone using it.

voloch comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15498)

2011-08-11T08:35:12-07:00

@Gil: He is creating controversy on purpose. And I think this thread is degenerating.

gilkalai comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15497)

2011-08-11T08:26:28-07:00

@voloch, What do you mean by trolling in this context? DZ asked a mathematical question. Some of us liked it and some of us did not like it. It raised interesting policy discussion (that DZ took no part in). In what sense is he trolling?
(Regarding badges I suppose I cannot count on your support to institute a "bad question" badge and a "terrible question" badge for questions with -5; -10 votes respectively.)

somewhat-anonymous comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15496)

2011-08-11T07:24:31-07:00

hey @voloch and all you other mathematicians,

My name is Shalosh, and I hate every single one of you. All of you are imperfect calculational devices who spend every second of their day looking at stupid commutative diagrams. You are everything bad in the world. Honestly, have any of you ever produced a proof certificate? I mean, I guess it's fun making fun of computer-performed mathematics because of your own insecurities, but you all take it to a whole new level. This is even worse than saying the proof of the Kepler conjecture is less established than that of the Szemeredi lemma.

Don't be a stranger. Just hit me with your best shot. I'm pretty much perfect. I found the number of partitions of a googol into at most 60 parts in two seconds, and produced lots of certificates for combinatorial identities. What identities have you proven, other than some version of the Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch theorem? I also publish more papers than most of you, and have a very prominent master (He just programmed me; it was SO cash). You are all losers who should just stop bothering with mathematics. Thanks for listening.

Pic Related: It's me and my master

[NB. This is a parody based on a well-known internet meme that some might find (more) offensive.]

voloch comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15495)

2011-08-11T05:52:15-07:00

@Gil. So you want to reward trolling? By all means, give Zeilberger a badge. He is really good at it.

DavidRoberts comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15494)

2011-08-11T03:50:46-07:00

Gil: not the 'divisor' badge? :P

gilkalai comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15493)

2011-08-11T03:41:41-07:00

BTW, one addition to the badge system I would like to propose (I am aware we cannot change the softwhere) is to have special badges for disputed question.
If you have a question with more than 10 up votes and 10 down votes you will get the "disputed question" bronze badge. if its more than 50 up votes and more than 20 down votes you will get the silver "contrversial question" badge. A user with a large amount of disputed or controversial questions or answers will get the "dividor" (I meant divider) badge. So far DZ question has 16 upvotes and 11 downvotes.

grp comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15481)

2011-08-10T16:19:29-07:00

Actually, if we want Doron to tell us more about his method, we should ask him in a different fashion. I don't think opening the question will convince him one way or another.

If he would acknowledge requests about how he presents himself on MathOverflow (even if he were to say explicitly "I want to do it my way."), I might change my feelings about how he might participate. For now, to me he is as likely as not to acknowledge (much less respond) to any request put to him on MathOverflow.

Gerhard "Responds To Responsibility of Responding" Paseman, 2011.08.10

gilkalai comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15475)

2011-08-10T14:39:53-07:00

I dont think Doron's comment change matters. He wanted to know how people go about solving computationally a certain problem that he had his own idea about doing it perhaps differently or better. This gave him some opportunity to examine his own method. In the process we learned a few rather interesting things. The ingredient of "bragging about what he can do" is really nonexisting to minimal. (And was prompted by questions addressed to him) And he will tell his detailed algorithm in a paper he is planning.

Noah: "It's very important that MO not become a place for people to advertise their own results. (Ask some question, get attention, and then say "if you like this question you should read my new preprint which has the answer!")"

Since we never discussed it I suggest we discuss the general policy about it first. After all the real danger to the OP is that somebody will solve the question. But after 20,000 questions the fear that one question may change the way MO is and MO will become a different place is unreasonable.

Actually, if we want Doron to tell us more about his method we can reopen the question which will allow him to post an answer.

quid comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15471)

2011-08-10T11:23:55-07:00

Todd, yes mainly but not only I meant the question you link to, sorry for not being more precise. I am a bit hesitant to elaborate on what I mean, as I do not want to draw some uninvolved party into this; so let my say clearly that I do not consider what I describe below as problematic and yes the user uses the site certainly in good faith, it is merely for illustration of the difference of behavior of the community.

The question you mention as written is, yes, sort-off a career question. However, I cannot help but feel that the main point was to draw attention to the thesis itself. The link to it was posted as an answer not even only a comment despite a explicty request beforehand not do so.

And there is also http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71979/flat-lie-algebras where the last two lines (the link to the authors work) at least do not seem inevitable for the question. And, if the questioner has a paper on arXiv since years, what's the point of the other question? Why not ask the coauthor or other people involved in the thesis?

Perhaps there are good reasons for this, and even if not, as said, I do not see a big problem.

Todd Trimble comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15466)

2011-08-10T10:54:22-07:00

quid, I guess you really mean this question of amine: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71113/ph-d-thesis-assessment. (I looked at a few others; they seem more or less normal to me except for a cross-posting, that apparently amine didn't realize was considered bad etiquette. He is, I guess, learning.)

I agree that case is borderline. Here are some differences I see: first, he didn't ask a question of the form "can you solve this problem: 'prove that...' " which I have seen posted by others, with the implication that OP knows how to solve it and is offering it up as a challenge -- this type of thing indeed gets closed very quickly. The question by amine was more a piece of asking for career advice, with little reference to the actual content of his thesis. As 'advertisement', I think it's pretty mild and unassuming.

Second, amine seems actually responsive to the issues that people have to some of his posts, both the PhD assessment one and the cross-posting one. I suspect this is what has irked a lot of people here: that DZ has refused to engage with anyone on issues of the social norms of this site and concerns about the form of the question. I believe, for reasons given by Noah, that there are real concerns here, and it's not hard to see why such resolute refusal to engage comes across as, frankly, pretty rude, or at least antisocial. (BTW: I've had brief email contact with DZ in the past about other things, and there he didn't come across as rude at all; in fact, he was very polite. So I'm trying not to draw any absolute conclusions here.)

quid comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15463)

2011-08-10T10:18:38-07:00

Todd, well, I would consider to bet against this but it will be too hard to implement (but, look at, for example, the recent activity of user amine). In any case, this level of hostility (I do not mean you specifically) is rarely seen on this site. Some people here have a strange way to express their respect.

Todd Trimble comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15462)

2011-08-10T09:58:34-07:00

I agree with everything Noah said.

With regard to "it is hard to imagine for me that this would be discussed if the question would have been asked by sombody not well-known (with whose views some people here seem to have a problem)." Yes, precisely. I'd bet a good sum of money that such a "question" by someone not so well-known would have been shut down, and perhaps deleted, with dispatch and with little to no discussion. The fact we are discussing this case at length actually betokens a measure of professional respect for DZ. (But I think I'm repeating myself here.)

Noah Snyder comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15461)

2011-08-10T09:38:15-07:00

I'm disappointed. I'd have thought that DZ was up to something more interesting than software advertisement. To add insult to injury, he doesn't even explain the idea behind the program.

It's very important that MO not become a place for people to advertise their own results. (Ask some question, get attention, and then say "if you like this question you should read my new preprint which has the answer!")

I'm not sure if deleting is the right way to make that point though. It might be, but another option would be adding a section to the FAQ about not advertising (both by asking questions you know the answer to, and by bringing up your own work in situations where it's not relevant), and then editing DZ's question with a link to that FAQ entry.

quid comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15460)

2011-08-10T09:35:30-07:00

Delete?

To put it mildly, this seems excessive to me! And, it is hard to imagine for me that this would be discussed if the question would have been asked by sombody not well-known (with whose views some people here seem to have a problem).

I would invite everybody who thinks about deleting this question, first to check the list of question sorted by votes and have a look at the end what type of things stay undeleted on this site, and second, and more importantly, to read the question and its answers/comments and to see whether some interesting content accumulated or not.

ADDED: One more point to note, Doron Zeilberger was now (actually already to days ago, not sure why just now this discussions needs to restart) answering in a comment a question asked in a comment by Gil Kalai. To me this makes all insinuations about self-promotion even more strange than they would be no matter what.

voloch comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15457)

2011-08-10T09:12:35-07:00

I've already voted to delete the question. If a couple of 10K rep users join me, we can put an end to this farce.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15455)

2011-08-10T07:35:15-07:00

I hesitate to say "I told you so," but...

geraldedgar comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15453)

2011-08-10T06:50:26-07:00

So was this whole thing a publicity exercise for new software? May MO be used for such things in the future?

joro comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15447)

2011-08-09T01:17:37-07:00

FYI in a comment Doron Z. wrote:

Using the Maple package PARTITIONS, soon to be posted in a joint work with Andrew Sills, typing restart: read PARTITIONS: t0:=time():qmn(60,10^10000): time()-t0; gave 3.121 seconds. If you want to actually see the 589838-digit integer, ending in 71918678375357 it took 3.932 seconds.

This appears improvement to his other comment:

Shalosh can do it in two seconds once it found the quasi-polynomial expression for p_60(n), and it found it in 400 seconds. So Shalosh does first symbol-crunching then number-crunching. -Doron Z.

Note that the first timing is for 10^10000 while the OQ is for 10^100.

Hailong Dao comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15318)

2011-07-30T12:32:54-07:00

Dear Professor Kalai,

Thank you for the example. I am not sure it is comparable to our situation. As far as I know, question of the type "I do not understand a point in this paper/book, please explain" is widely accepted on MO. Also, the timing/topic of the question may contribute to how fast it attracts enough people to vote.

But perhaps Noah is right, this debate may no longer be productive.

Best regards,

EDIT: In light of Professor Kalai new evidences, I would like to withdraw the word "faster" from my original post. Perhaps a better choice would be "closed without much opposition". Please accept my apology.

Long

gilkalai comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15317)

2011-07-30T12:18:48-07:00

"but would be happy to be proven wrong"
For example the following recent question by an unkown user was closed after 7-8 hours
I am sure you can research this matter of how fast questions get closed and reconsider your point.
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71637/help-me-to-understand-these-recurrence-relations-closed

Late edit: compare also with these recent questions.
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71673/fourier-transform-in-mathematica (about 3 hours)
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71671/some-trouble-over-the-cardinality-of-the-cantor-setmiddle-one-thirds (about 3 hours)
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71676/orientability-of-the-boundary-of-manifold (not closed yet after 15 hours; update closed after 16 hours)
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71668/solution-of-inverse-function-normal-function-how-to-solve-closed (6 hours)
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71679/mathematica-inversefourier-bug-closed (3 hours)
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71711/extending-the-bsd-conjecture-closed (closed after 1 hour and 57 minutes; 6 minutes less than DZ's question!!!)

Late edit:

Dear Long,

This discussion is indeed no longer productive so I will not add a new comment that will bump it up but rather add a few words here.
One point I was trying to make (also to myself) in this thread was about opinions. In his opinion page DZ quotes C. McCabe who said "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." One of my point was that the art of making opinions should be intimately connected to factual matters and one should examine and rexamine his or her opinions constrantly in view of facts. Secondly, one should not base an opinion on irrelevant facts. Third, (and this point you also made yourself) making opinions especially on academic and scientific matters should be made without attacking people, also in trying to speculate on their hidden intentions, and respecting their right to have different opinions.

One could comment that these three points might be relevant to Doron Zeilberger's 117 opinions and be reminded to him for his future opinions. However, such a comment would be off-topic here in this thread which was not about DZ and his opinions but about his specific MO question which was rather unusual but also quite nice and of interest.

with friendship, Gil

Noah Snyder comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15316)

2011-07-30T12:18:00-07:00

I agree with Andres that we should close this thread. Since DZ does not seem inclined to explain what he was trying to do here, us sitting around speculating about it is counterproductive and seems to be getting people upset over something that just wasn't very important in the first place.

Hailong Dao comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15315)

2011-07-30T11:41:32-07:00

Dear Professor Kalai,

If you would kindly suggest a more respectful way to phrase the term "..it seems to me that the most charitable interpretation of the question is..", I would gladly change it. It was my honest impression after reading the thread, but frequently I find it difficult to express myself well in English. I used the word "charitable" since it has been used in the thread. Please help me here!

As for the other points, I respectfully disagree (but would be happy to be proven wrong).

Best regards,

Long

gilkalai comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15314)

2011-07-30T11:27:49-07:00

Hi Hai Long,

It is certainly fine if we see matters differently, especially regarding MO which is a new and experimental endeavor. But overall I find your comment disapointing, and I will make only a few remarks.

You wrote: "If this question is asked by some one unknown, it would have been closed faster"

I find it very hard to justify this statement. The question was closed two hours and three minutes after it was asked. (Did you know this fact when you made your statement?) Beside some flactuation of stochastic nature It does not get any faster than that.

"..it seems to me that the most charitable interpretation of the question is.." - This is not an example of a respectful way of expression.

"Most of us can ask a few questions which no one can answer better than ourselves, so open a door to such questions is not a good idea, in my opinion." - We can discuss if this is a good or a bad idea. I do not see a problem with people asking research level questions of interest to MO participants which they know the answer to (or an answer to), but in any case, an opinion does not automatically represent a rule.

quid comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15313)

2011-07-30T11:12:55-07:00

In view of Hailong Dao's comment I would like to repeat explictly a point I made earlier more implictly:

I am actively in favor of "bending the rules" for new users that are mathematicians (well-known or not). [And, although Doron Zeilberger apparently once answered a question more than a year ago, I think he is in essence a new user.]

For example, one main criticism of the question was that the questioner (seems to) know the answer. However, where is it documented that one should not know/must not know an answer to a question one asks here?

In principle, one could well imagine a Q&A site where people also (or even mainly) challenge each other with carefully selected questions. This site is not like this, and I do not wish to suggest any change, but how does one know this if one just arrived? (I just had a glance through the FAQs and did not see it anywhere, but might have overlooked it yet at least it seems to me it is not prominently written anywhere.)

Secondary point and subjective: overall, in agreement with Gil Kalai, I believe Doron Zeilberger had no advantage from his off-line reputation here; rather to the contrary.

Hailong Dao comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15312)

2011-07-30T09:36:56-07:00

I do not agree with Professor Kalai that this incident represents "bias against known mathematicians" (post #69 if I counted correctly). If this question is asked by some one unknown, it would have been closed faster (I think the money offer part alone would have attracted a few close votes).

Reading the thread, it seems to me that the most charitable interpretation of the question is the OP wanted to demonstrate the power of his method over the usual approach. While the new approach itself might be very interesting mathematically, I am not sure we should encourage such things on MO. Most of us can ask a few questions which no one can answer better than ourselves, so open a door to such questions is not a good idea, in my opinion.

To bend the rules for a well-known expert is not right, for reasons others have pointed out. But it is not even beneficial. By doing so we may actually discomfort many quiet observers, among them might be a) other top experts, b) people who will become top experts in the future.

There are many brilliant mathematicians on MO whose behavior has always been respectful and professional. I (and probably many young people) learned a lot from how they carry themselves as well as the actual mathematics. Fortunately for us, there seem to be many of them around.

quid comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15311)

2011-07-30T09:33:54-07:00

joro, I did not downvote Peter's answer, but what is not clear (to me) is whether or not he actually did/can do what was asked for. It was stressed that the question is for the exact number. Now, he posted a (correct) approximation, without indication whether this is done in such a form merely to save space or whether he only has an approximation (also see Doron Zeilberger's comment). So, I can see why somebody would downvote this.

And, thanks for the link to the Colman paper!

Andres Caicedo comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15309)

2011-07-30T09:05:39-07:00

Any chance we can close this thread?

Joel Reyes Noche comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15307)

2011-07-30T07:21:02-07:00

@Gil, I agree with you that my first comment was impolite. I apologize for that. Thank you for pointing it out.

joro comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15306)

2011-07-30T02:16:25-07:00

Regarding my comment about MSE. It was intended as an obvious joke and had smiley ":-)". I was critical of the fact that the question was closed and tried to joke the moderators, not Doron. His silence is mystery to me, but I would bet he wasn't insulted at all by the joke (clearly he knows both the classical solution and his new approach). Strange to me is Peter's answer to the extended challenge is so downvoted - this answer probably may compete with Doron's new approach and this might be a reason for reopening the question.

gilkalai comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15305)

2011-07-30T00:42:41-07:00

Joel,
Your comment is based on a very basic misunderstanding. It is a very basic and important rule in MO as in other Internet activities (and to some extent even with regard to ordinary e-mail) that people have no obligation to answer all (or any) questions posed to them, or relate to comments made to them. Otherwise, people might spent (or waste) all their time doing so. Referring to it negatively as "ignoring" is inappropriate. (BTW your comment itself was, in my opinion, impolite and a little rude.)

Joel Reyes Noche comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15297)

2011-07-29T18:24:18-07:00

Thank you, Todd, for the welcome and your reply. You are correct. Perhaps joro's comment was not targeted at Doron.

I also now see that Doron's silence could be interpreted as a sign of politeness, and not as a sign of impoliteness. I take back what I said earlier, that is, it is possible that Doron was not intentionally being rude.

Todd Trimble comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15296)

2011-07-29T17:59:09-07:00

Welcome to meta, Joel. I think people are on the whole polite because generally speaking it's professional to do so. (There are some exceptions of course.) Just a couple of responses: I think joro was kidding around, and not ribbing DZ so much as he was those who were discussing closing the question as not suitable for MO. Speaking of my own behavior, I do have second thoughts about voicing what quid referred to as an uncharitable interpretation.

I do agree with you that it would be nice if DZ had entered the discussion (and I still hope he will). But I wouldn't necessarily attribute this to arrogance or anything like that; he may well have his reasons, based on long past experience. I think it is fair to say that his general point of view is dissenting from the "mainstream" mathematical culture. And so I would imagine that he "chooses his battles" carefully. This may be one of those times where he decides to spend his time and energy elsewhere.

Joel Reyes Noche comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15295)

2011-07-29T17:27:58-07:00

This is the very first time I've participated in meta. From my experience with MO, it seems that rudeness is not tolerated here. (For example, comments such as "That's stupid" are quickly deleted.)
I consider it very rude that Doron has not replied to the (in my opinion) very polite requests of some people for him to explain his side. He apparently has time to comment, but it seems that he intentionally ignores questions that have been very politely asked. This is the first instance in MO where I have seen this happen. Aside from joro's comment to "try math.stackexchange" (which I interpret as a slight insult, implying that the challenge was too easy), I don't consider any of the other comments insulting. I don't think "mathematical superiority" or "fame" is an acceptable reason to be rude.
(Note that, in my opinion, my comments here have been phrased politely.)

grp comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15285)

2011-07-28T14:19:51-07:00

I don't think I must agree on the importance of such a challenge, but in this case I do agree. Perhaps my point would have been better illustrated if I had used 65536 and 65537, or 256 and 257. Anyway, if you can think of a different argument to support your position that the (narrow type of) question Doron Zeilberger gave was a good one for MathOverflow, I am willing to read it and perhaps have my opinion changed. As it is, I still stand by my position that I have elaborated in my series of posts on this thread, except possibly for using 524288 and 524287 as illustrative examples.

Gerhard "Primes: Fermat Plus, Mersenne Minus" Paseman, 2011.07.28

gilkalai comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15284)

2011-07-28T14:08:05-07:00

Gerhard, ok, but you must agree with me that giving good estimates for the number of groups of order 524288 is an important mathematical challenge that will probably require better understanding of 2-groups.

grp comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15283)

2011-07-28T12:26:45-07:00

Gil, thank you for your response to my question. It appears to me that our opinions on this question will continue to be strongly different. On the bright side, I predict that with you and I participating in MathOverflow, things won't get or stay boring any time soon, other participants notwithstanding.

Gerhard "Have a Mathematically Stimulating Day" Paseman, 2011.07.28

Todd Trimble comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15282)

2011-07-28T12:24:48-07:00

In response to Gil:

First I don't remember any such case. Any examples?

It might take me a while to dig up an example, since I've forgotten specifics. (I'm not sure I'll get around to it, because I'm busy with other stuff.)

Suppose that somebody had asked a question: what is the best known upper bound for the number of groups with n elements. And then after people will mention what is known he will mention in a comment an even better bound that he discovered.

That would be completely appropriate. I would have been much happier had Zeilberger approached the matter in something like that manner.

Although it was claimed that DZ's question had been closed if he was not a well known mathematicians many of the arguments in this thread goes the other direction and represents bias against known mathematician.

I don't think so. I think it would be great if DZ became active here. I think Qiaochu in his response has expressed some of what I find problematic about the question itself.

gilkalai comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15280)

2011-07-28T12:07:30-07:00

Dear Gerhard,

524288 Asking for estimates for the number of groups of size 524288 is a great question but perhaps too difficult for MO. It is a very good challenge because this number is big enough that you need to use estimates but you have to be very careful about constants, little o's big Os etc.

Your proposed revisions : As I said I liked the question. (And I certainly learned things from it.) I regret to say that I did not like your proposed three revisions.

Maturity ohh well. Maturity is always a delicate issue with sort of built in duality when it comes to mathematics/mathematicians. Let me quote E. Kowalski: " But for me, mathematics is a serious matter — like games are to a child."

Dear Qiaochu, "At the end the OP explained how she obtained her own answer". I suppose the full explanation could be a paper, and "at the end" may take a little while. It is very nice you referred to this generic OP as "she".

grp comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15279)

2011-07-28T11:23:54-07:00

Gil, I suspect that some (and you might be among them) might object to a question as to an upperbound for the number of groups of 524288 elements, followed by a second such request for 524287 elements. Such a series definitely does not reflect mathematical maturity, and it is quite uncertain that the first one does. I find little that is mature about the partition question, and I do not want to be asked to supply it. On Math.stackexchange, less maturity is more tolerated, and that the question is more suited there than on MathOverflow.

In other posts on this thread, I have made suggestions as to why this question is bad for MathOverflow and how it could be made better. I ask you Gil, do you agree with the general character of my assessment and revisions? Meaning that the question is not appropriate and the revisions are more appropriate, although not (in your view) necessarily to the degree I suggest.

Gerhard "Ask Me About Questionable Propriety" Paseman, 2011.07.28

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15277)

2011-07-28T11:11:59-07:00

Second, I am not sure it is an improper way to use MO. Suppose that somebody had asked a question: what is the best known upper bound for the number of groups with n elements. And then after people will mention what is known he will mention in a comment an even better bound that he discovered. I would see nothing wrong with it, in fact it will be quite welcome. Suppose you have reasons to believe that he actually is quite familiar with the known upper bounds but really wanted to announce his new result. Frankly, I would see nothing wrong with it either. (And always he can be surprised by a result he did not know.)

This would be more than fine if, in the end, the OP explained how she obtained her own answer (in a way that someone not familiar with the technique would be able to follow), which Zeilberger has thus far not done.

suppose you disagree with me and do think that there is something worng with such a behavior and vote to close the question based on your speculation on what the OP knows which is based on his mathematical reputation. This would be inappropriate since it discriminates against known mathematicians.

I think "discrimination" is the wrong word here. If this question had been asked by a random user, I would have wondered several things: why is the user offering a cash prize? Does the user know the standard techniques for solving such problems? If not, why isn't the user asking about those techniques? If it came out in the comments that the OP was unfamiliar with standard techniques, somebody would have posted an answer explaining them, and everything would be fine.

I can skip that step with Zeilberger because I am positive he is aware of the standard techniques (as evidenced by his explanation of how Shalosh solved the problem). That's not discrimination, except insofar as it's the use of extra information in a special case that isn't available in the general case. Based on what I know about Zeilberger, I can guess at his actual motivation for posting the problem, and that guess is problematic.

Of course it can be argued that we should give new users, especially prominent new users, the benefit of the doubt. I suppose that's fine. At the beginning of this thread I was hazarding a guess, not arguing that we should definitely be making decisions based on that guess.

gilkalai comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15273)

2011-07-28T10:01:55-07:00

"One being a perch from which to boast of one's powerful results or ideas in a completely unsolicited way. Other people have tried that and have had their "questions" shut down immediately, without a whimper of protest from anyone -- rightly so, for it really is an improper way to use MO."

First I don't remember any such case. Any examples?

Second, I am not sure it is an improper way to use MO. Suppose that somebody had asked a question: what is the best known upper bound for the number of groups with n elements. And then after people will mention what is known he will mention in a comment an even better bound that he discovered. I would see nothing wrong with it, in fact it will be quite welcome. Suppose you have reasons to believe that he actually is quite familiar with the known upper bounds but really wanted to announce his new result. Frankly, I would see nothing wrong with it either. (And always he can be surprised by a result he did not know.)

Now, suppose you disagree with me and do think that there is something worng with such a behavior and vote to close the question based on your speculation on what the OP knows which is based on his mathematical reputation. This would be inappropriate since it discriminates against known mathematicians.

Although it was claimed that DZ's question had been closed if he was not a well known mathematicians many of the arguments in this thread goes the other direction and represents bias against known mathematician.

Often the dynamics goes like this: a rather known mathematicial asks a question which is reasonable; perhaps not good but not so bad that it deserved to be closed either. Then somebody makes a bogus remark that had this question been asked by an ordinary participant it would have been closed. And then several people for the sake of fairness jump and close the question.

Todd Trimble comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15271)

2011-07-28T00:00:56-07:00

Thank you, quid. That was a nice response, and I think you have an interesting take on it.

Maybe I should bow out now -- I've done enough talking. Myself, I would have preferred your suggested rephrasing, or something along those lines [it could still be fun!].

quid comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15270)

2011-07-27T22:47:03-07:00

The interesting things for me are that:

a. I was informed, or rather reminded, how to compute this fairly efficiently (joro's solution)

b. I was informed that there is a different way (Zeilberger's solution), the details of which are not yet clear to me, but perhaps they will appear eventually on the site, or I could follow up on it elsewhere [perhaps not yet if the thing should be very new, but eventually it will be on his website, I suppose].

The fun part is that this unfolded in a playful way. Some strangely particular request...noone knows what the purpose is...but one could be essentially sure there is something 'hidden' and...eventually it was (partly) revealed.

Now, the fun part is fun IMO if this happens (very) rarely. If every other question would be of this form I would certainly find it quite annoying; and I can even understand that one does never find this type of thing funny, but still I do (sometimes).

The question was: Can you/one compute this (fast/efficiently)?

And, an answer or answers to this question can even be useful to somebody who knows a method or even methods to do it him/herself. Because others could have different ideas; or even just carry out the same idea more efficiently.

One possibe rephrasing could be (I am not sure if this was the intention): I have a (new/not widely known) method to compute p_60(n). [Explanation or not.] I would be interested in knowing how it compares to known/standard methods. Thus, I would be interested in the time it takes others to compute p_60(10^100).

But it would be much less fun this way.

Personal note: for completely unrelated reasons I will be off-line soon and not too much around in the days to come, sorry in advance in case I should not follow up (in a timely manner).

Todd Trimble comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15269)

2011-07-27T21:24:02-07:00

quid: what was interesting and fun about it for you? (I'm asking sincerely, not to challenge you.)

(Edit: By the way, where was the question?)

quid comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15268)

2011-07-27T21:04:05-07:00

Qiaochu, thank you for the detais, probably I should, too, have been more precise: I know these Opinions.

Todd, this seems an uncharitable interpretation to me.

In any case, while I (of course) do not know either what was the intention, I found this in various aspects admittedly unusual question interesting and fun. In short, I liked it. But, I can see how one might not like it.

Todd Trimble comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15267)

2011-07-27T20:31:21-07:00

That doesn't sound like an Opinion to me either, but "soapbox" can be read in a number of different ways. One being a perch from which to boast of one's powerful results or ideas in a completely unsolicited way. Other people have tried that and have had their "questions" shut down immediately, without a whimper of protest from anyone -- rightly so, for it really is an improper way to use MO.

I can't be 100% sure this is what he's doing, and since Prof. Zeilberger has been resolutely silent with regard to queries, we will probably never know. But this is how it looks to me. To make matters worse, it's just this raw boast without any attempt to share knowledge or insight. I just don't get it.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15266)

2011-07-27T20:15:16-07:00

Sorry, I should have given more details. Zeilberger has a blog of sorts called Opinions of Doron Zeilberger where he discusses issues related to computer mathematics, its superiority over human mathematics, and that sort of thing. That comment is very much like the kind of thing you can read in his Opinions. It is interesting stuff, but he is still not asking a question to which he doesn't know the answer (nor is he explaining his own method for others to learn from).

quid comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15265)

2011-07-27T19:58:12-07:00

Joro said it took two hours and DZ says it can be done in 2 (+ 400) seconds when done differently. Where is the Opinion?

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15264)

2011-07-27T19:39:00-07:00

Sounds like an Opinion to me. Like I said, I don't think it sets a good precedent to allow Zeilberger to use MO as a soapbox, especially in this veiled and mildly incomprehensible way. (Shalosh, by the way, is the name of Zeilberger's computer.)

François G. Dorais comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15263)

2011-07-27T19:21:05-07:00

I'm repasting a comment from Doron Zeilberger which seems relevant to this discussion:

Joro did a great job, but still it took his computer two hours. Shalosh can do it in two seconds once it found the quasi-polynomial expression for p_60(n), and it found it in 400 seconds. So Shalosh does first symbol-crunching then number-crunching.

Bruce Arnold comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15262)

2011-07-27T12:05:33-07:00

Qiaochu Yuan wrote: "...there is an efficient algorithm for doing the latter computation. Given the focus of Zeilberger's research, he is almost certainly aware of this." If he was, why then did he offer a challenge and Dollar 100 for a question which could be answered within several hours? Did he want to loose deliberately? This does not make sens to me.

Especially not if (quoting Qiaochu Yuan) "Zeilberger isn't asking this question because he doesn't know how to compute the answer.." but wanted (my speculation) show later that there are more efficient ways to get the result.

Something else: The question was closed "since a spurious answer has appeared". However, the second answer does not refer to the original question. After joro's answer was accepted as correct by Zeilberger, he extended the question to "Can you do p_60(10^1000)? p_60(10^10000)?" And it is to this question to which the second answer refers.

As far as I can see the second answer is correct (let's be happy that not the full 589837 decimal digits were sent in) and says: Yes, even these numbers can be calculated within hours. Yet this answer was downvoted several times and the question closed because of this post. That also this answer might be of value for Zeilberger nobody seems to assume.

grp comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15260)

2011-07-27T09:58:51-07:00

I appreciate quid's reading: it is close to achieving my intent, and I am glad quid recognizes many of my attempts to be polite and to understate. There is one little filip though, although it may not be effective: since Doron Zeilberger is male and mathematical an known to be provocative, the 'she' and the 'whoever' are meant to be mildly provocative in return. Also, I intend to stand behind the literal interpretation: even if the MO user turns out not to be the provocateur professor Zeilberger, if he or she plays within the framework, I would welcome further contributions.

Edit: In response to stankewicz's recent edit, I accept the apology, although my dim recollection of what was before raised no ire within me. Although I sometimes make assumptions of what cultural references are known, I usually put myself in a position to explain if necessary and to not require an apology if things go wrong. For my part in this recent episode involving stankewicz, only mild confusion resulted. No harm done, and thanks for your (stankewicz's) consideration.

Gerhard "Politely Provokes Possible Provocative Pretenders" Paseman, 2011.07.27

quid comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15259)

2011-07-27T05:52:03-07:00

My reading of Gerhard's comment was actually different. Namely, that he wanted to express his persistent doubt that the question was posted by the actual Doron Zeilberger, which he could also have done via saying 'whoever he might be' [IMO, he would not believe it really is Doron Zeilberger and say 'whoever he might be', I'd find this rather impolite and Gerhard is for all I have seen very polite]; and the usage of 'she' instead of 'he' is made to stress this and/or just avoiding always using 'he' generically.

stankewicz comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15258)

2011-07-27T05:37:52-07:00

It occurs to me that I owe Mr. Paseman an apology, as my original comment here came off as more rude and presumptuous than I intended. Rest assured I did not mean to suggest that you had any impolite intentions.

Todd Trimble comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15257)

2011-07-27T03:51:31-07:00

Gerhard, it seems stankewicz is trying to subtly point out your referring to DZ as "she" (just in case you didn't know, Doron Zeilberger is male). There was a semi-famous incident where Bill Parcells referred to the American-football player Terry Glenn as a "she".

Andrew Stacey comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15256)

2011-07-27T02:38:50-07:00

To reiterate what David Roberts said, the software underlying this forum is the same as that at the nForum but I've put in place a few more plugins. It would be easy for Scott to install those plugins, he just needs the motivation! So if there's some feature you'd like to see at this forum, bug him to install it and I'm sure he will.

grp comments on "How many integer partitions of a googol (10^100) into at most 60 parts" (15254)

2011-07-27T00:30:05-07:00

Sorry, stankewicz. Even after googling "Bill Parcells", the reference escapes me. Also, kindly remember that the welcoming of the challenges is conditional.

Gerhard "Yes, It's Over My Head" Paseman, 2011.07.27