tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (A technicality)

Anton Geraschenko comments on "A technicality" (5429)

Anton Geraschenko — Thu, 06 May 2010 23:39:00 -0700

@JHS: Regarding what MO is for, check out this post I recently made. I tried to identify various classes of questions which, though interesting and worthwhile, do not belong on MO (the post also includes links to the relevant discussions here on meta). A lot of thought and community discussion went into drawing the boundaries of what belongs on MO. Of course, those boundaries are still evolving and that community discussion is still going on; you should feel absolutely free to make your case for where MO should go, but try to skim those discussions first so that we don't cover the same ground too many times.

J. H. S. comments on "A technicality" (5424)

J. H. S. — Thu, 06 May 2010 21:41:00 -0700

Just edited that, fgdorais. I'm really sorry for any possible misinterpretations that the previous version of my post may have suffered.

François G. Dorais comments on "A technicality" (5423)

François G. Dorais — Thu, 06 May 2010 21:14:31 -0700

@JHS

That's exactly one of the impulses that have motivated this meta-discussion.

What do you mean?

J. H. S. comments on "A technicality" (5422)

J. H. S. — Thu, 06 May 2010 20:57:05 -0700

@Qiaochu:

This is not what MO is for (as of now). The situation can and might change, though. That's exactly one of the impulses that have motivated my participation in this meta-discussion.

Also, I was referring to in-general argumentation on MO.

Best of luck,

J. H. S.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "A technicality" (5421)

Qiaochu Yuan — Thu, 06 May 2010 19:41:20 -0700

What is more, I don't even get why it is that those qualities are so much frowned upon on the site. I think that people that study Math ought not to have such hard feelings towards argumentantion in general.

They don't. "In general" and "on MO" are two completely different contexts. If you'd like to learn more about the large body of discussion we've had on this issue in meta, you can dig through the old threads yourself or I'm sure someone has a ready-made set of links to them.

The question might also be considered as an invitation to reflect on the impact that an excess of technical lemmata has on the quality of a paper.

This is also not what MO is for.

François G. Dorais comments on "A technicality" (5419)

François G. Dorais — Thu, 06 May 2010 18:09:35 -0700

I think the main issue is that "technical lemma" is not attached to a particular context. To answer the question, one would have to dig through the entire corpus of mathematics, so it's not reasonable to expect an objective answer.

There is another difference with other terminological questions. As stated, the question seeks to find the "root of all evil" (in a limited sense, of course). This is hard to motivate and it is doubtful that the outcome will be of great use.

J. H. S. comments on "A technicality" (5418)

J. H. S. — Thu, 06 May 2010 17:28:27 -0700

I was actually expecting an answer of the type: "Well, that denomination dates back at least to..." That being said, I wonder why it is that some people regard my quest as subjective, discussion-y, and stuff. What is more, I don't even get why it is that those qualities are so much frowned upon on the site. I think that people that study Math ought not to have such hard feelings towards argumentation in general.

Edit: The question might also be considered as an invitation to reflect on the impact that an excess of technical lemmata has on the quality of a paper. I mean, people may go about invoking technical lemmas every time that they just don't see how to motivate a given claim... Do you reckon it appropriate that they masquerade those portions of their exposition behind a couple of convenient technical lemmas?

Anton Geraschenko comments on "A technicality" (5414)

Anton Geraschenko — Thu, 06 May 2010 16:11:34 -0700

Since the term "technical lemma" isn't likely to actually confuse somebody reading a paper, I interpret the question as an invitation to discuss how to properly name results in papers. I agree with Andrew's comment

I would be interested in following people's thoughts on use of "lemma" etc, just not on MO.

I feel like it might be possible to make it into an okay MO question (c.f. punctuation in mathematical writing), but ultimately I think it will push the "subjective and argumentative" boundary.

Andrea comments on "A technicality" (5413)

Andrea — Thu, 06 May 2010 16:11:32 -0700

I did not vote to close just because I didn't read it. :-)

François G. Dorais comments on "A technicality" (5388)

François G. Dorais — Thu, 06 May 2010 11:29:50 -0700

The question 23668 has been closed, but it now has two votes to reopen. Such votes should not be ignored, so please voice your support or opposition here.

PS: I didn't vote to reopen. In fact, I thought this was a pretty clear cut case when I voted to close.