tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (When precisely are naive MO questions (e.g. the knot associated to a prime) inappropriate for MO?)

Jon Bannon comments on "When precisely are naive MO questions (e.g. the knot associated to a prime) inappropriate for MO?" (12363)

Jon Bannon — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 14:06:08 -0800

@Pete: You are right, thanks for the perspective and vote of confidence. I'd still like to be sensitive to differences in taste, if at all possible. It's one thing to ask something knowing full well that it will irk someone, and it is another to do so completely oblivious to an existing cogent objection.

Pete L. Clark comments on "When precisely are naive MO questions (e.g. the knot associated to a prime) inappropriate for MO?" (12362)

Pete L. Clark — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 13:24:11 -0800

@Jon: It seems to me that the feedback on this question has been very largely positive. It's pretty rare in life -- isn't it? -- to do something that meets with universal approbation. It's especially rare on internet forums.

For my part, I thought your question was interesting, and I have no problem whatsoever with your asking further "speculative" questions on MO.

Jon Bannon comments on "When precisely are naive MO questions (e.g. the knot associated to a prime) inappropriate for MO?" (12359)

Jon Bannon — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 09:45:55 -0800

You did say frothing...

Even if your opinion is a minority one, I'm interested in hearing it. (The fact that my question raised no "appropriateness" red flag at all for me is where my concern lies!)

Frictionless Jelly comments on "When precisely are naive MO questions (e.g. the knot associated to a prime) inappropriate for MO?" (12358)

Frictionless Jelly — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 09:37:44 -0800

Foaming? I thought I said frothing...

Let me first say that many nt-number.theory questions on MO elicit that reaction from me - please do not feel singled out. If I have time later, I will try to elucidate exactly what it is that bothers me, although, I suspect, my opinion may well be a minority one. I will note that I did not even down vote the question.

jonbannon comments on "When precisely are naive MO questions (e.g. the knot associated to a prime) inappropriate for MO?" (12354)

jonbannon — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 08:08:19 -0800

Perhaps you are right. I've changed the wording to "inappropriate". I originally used the word offensive because FJ wrote that my question had him "foaming at the mouth". If such questions tick people off so much, I'd certainly prefer not to ask them... The rating system seems to send mixed messages. It is, of course, quite possible that lowbrow users can up vote horrible questions...this is why I originally deleted my question...on the other hand, there is significant interest in the question.

Mariano comments on "When precisely are naive MO questions (e.g. the knot associated to a prime) inappropriate for MO?" (12353)

Mariano — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 08:03:08 -0800

I don't think offensive is the correct way to describe the problem...

jonbannon comments on "When precisely are naive MO questions (e.g. the knot associated to a prime) inappropriate for MO?" (12352)

jonbannon — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 07:55:57 -0800

Sometimes it behooves me to ask very naive questions on MO, although they are honest questions that may have a very useful refinement.

In order to be a better user of MO, I'd really like to know precisely what is offensive about these "duller" questions, in particular the one in the title.

(Clearly, as is the case of the question in the title, such a question can be downright ungrammatical as pointed out in a comment by Frictionless Jellyfish.)

Let me point out that not all of the community members are at large research institutions and can bounce such broad questions off collegues or professors at tea. For such community members, MO is a godsend for exactly the purpose of such conversations that "right the ship".