tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Using MO as testing ground for conjectures)

peter.krautzberger comments on "Using MO as testing ground for conjectures" (15487)

2011-08-10T18:53:11-07:00

I agree with the Will and Todd; "mostly harmless" seems to fit as a description. Andreas Blass is his usual self and kindly answers a lot of porton's questions which usually get accepted by porton.

@Scott I somewhat disagree with you. I think linking to your own research shouldn't be grounds for dismissal because I think that would be a very slippery slope.

Something that also is a difficulty is the poor English -- on his website, he claims not to speak English at all, but to write it reasonably well.

I only know this because porton recently asked for his blog to be included on mathblogging.org. Although there are some unusual things on his other websites, we agreed that his mathematical blog (and, I would add, his posts), are really harmless and that's not really grounds for exclusion from anything.

I also think that the community is working very well with respect to his questions -- he is often asked to clarify and, if failing, receives downvotes.

So I think there's nothing that needs fixing here (for now).

Scott Morrison comments on "Using MO as testing ground for conjectures" (15482)

2011-08-10T16:23:28-07:00

I'm personally quite happy to ask him not to post such questions as these (perhaps phrased as: please don't link to your own research in questions, and please don't use terminology that is only used in your own publications), but won't bother unless someone prompts me to. I'm fairly happy to claim that http://www.mathematics21.org/abel-prize.html counts as not wearing pants, and don't feel any compulsion to be especially gentle.

grp comments on "Using MO as testing ground for conjectures" (15480)

2011-08-10T16:12:21-07:00

It would be easy to judge porton based on his history. It is a little more challenging to do so on the basis of the content of his posts. I would like to say directly to him that he is rewording some of the literature on relational algebras, but I can't: I don't know the literature well enough to assert it. I think we should wait until someone who is properly qualified can understand enough of his corpus to say something like that to him.

As to testing conjectures, I agree it can be a sloppy use of MathOverflow. It can also be a very productive use of MathOverflow. It is probably best to take a combination of title, poster, and question content into consideration in determining how much time to spend on it. In my opinion, porton has not made a serious negative impact on the forum yet.

Gerhard "Software Testing, That's Another Matter" Paseman, 2011.08.10

Todd Trimble comments on "Using MO as testing ground for conjectures" (15478)

2011-08-10T15:32:36-07:00

I think he's probably not the only one who uses MO to test conjectures. I could name some names, but I won't. I think in general conjecture-testing ought to be considered acceptable. His case is exceptional to me largely because he is so far removed from anything in the mainstream, and yeah, what Will Jagy said in the last sentence. In general I regard all this stuff as weird but essentially harmless; I think the Abel Prize (for which he wishes to be nominated) is not a 'threat'. :-)

Will Jagy comments on "Using MO as testing ground for conjectures" (15477)

2011-08-10T14:50:31-07:00

I had ignored them as way outside my interests, but they seem as much publicizing his unusual viewpoint as anything else. So, less questions than what amounts to a blog. Goes into the WTF? file.

Mariano comments on "Using MO as testing ground for conjectures" (15476)

2011-08-10T14:43:36-07:00

We've had a few questions by Victor Porton (http://mathoverflow.net/users/4086/porton) which are a bit strange in that they are more or less statements of conjectures endogenous to his theory (to which he always links: his theory has a webpage)

I cannot quite phrase what I think the problem is, but I don't think this is a good use of MO. Ideas?