tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Would the following question be appropriate for MO?)

Steven Gubkin comments on "Would the following question be appropriate for MO?" (3170)

2010-02-18T12:01:35-08:00

In the process of laboriously typing the question I found the error I had made... Oh well.

Anton Geraschenko comments on "Would the following question be appropriate for MO?" (3113)

2010-02-17T15:46:44-08:00

I think this is a fine question for meta. As far as asking the question on MO, it's okay, but I don't really like "find what I'm doing wrong" questions. If at all possible, reformulate your question to make it sound more appealing than verifying a calculation. It sounds like this particular question might be pretty hard to reframe. Do your best.

Ben Webster comments on "Would the following question be appropriate for MO?" (3111)

2010-02-17T15:18:41-08:00

Just in case you wanted to hear it from a moderator too, yes, your question looks fine and yes, it's fine to ask about it on meta. I feel like in general "Here is this thing I was was trying to do, and I couldn't seem to get things to match up. Where have I gone wrong?" is fine, as long as it isn't overused. I would be a bit displeased if someone had one of these every week, but every once in a while it's a great use of the site. A bad question would be something like "What is the associahedron?" which didn't give context of any sort.

Harry Gindi comments on "Would the following question be appropriate for MO?" (3109)

2010-02-17T15:13:28-08:00

Heh, Tom, I was going to link your book as an answer when he posted the question =\.

Tom Leinster comments on "Would the following question be appropriate for MO?" (3108)

2010-02-17T14:57:39-08:00

Steven,

(i) Yes, I certainly think that your meta-question an appropriate question for meta. In general, I think that if someone doubts whether the question they have in mind is suitable for MO, then asking about it here is a fine thing to do, and probably makes for a more pleasant experience than asking at MO and having it closed.

(ii) Yes, I think your actual question is appropriate for MO. It's quite specialized, sure, but you have a precise question and you've put work into it finding an answer yourself.

(iii) Now that I've got this far, I can't resist giving you a couple of links that might answer your question. First, there's Eugenia Cheng and Aaron Lauda's instructions for "Build your own 5-associahedron". This doesn't show which trees go on which vertices, but Figure 7-G (p.194) of this does most of the job.

Harry Gindi comments on "Would the following question be appropriate for MO?" (3106)

2010-02-17T14:10:09-08:00

I think that this question is fine. You might want to make up a codecogs diagram or get a picture of what you've done, since it's a lot easier to help you if you've got a picture handy. However, have you checked nLab? There are some articles linked under Stasheff Polytopes that see like they might help you (the stasheff polytopes are the higher associahedra, if I remember correctly).

Steven Gubkin comments on "Would the following question be appropriate for MO?" (3105)

2010-02-17T13:44:46-08:00

I am reading "Iterated Loop Spaces" by Frank Morgan, and I am trying to understand the associahedra. I thought it would be fun to build a model of K_5 to understand how it fits together. The problem is that when I actually drew out the 14 different ways of associating 5 elements and identified face and edge relationships, it doesn't seem to be consistent with the standard picture of K_5. I am sure that it must have been a silly error on my part, but for the past few days I have spent at least an hour or two redoing it and getting the same mistake. I feel silly asking for someone on MO to look through my work for (what must be) trivial errors, but I am getting a little desperate. If I actually asked this question I would scan the work I have done. Would this be an appropriate question for MO?

Also is this an appropriate question for meta? (And is there a meta-meta where this last question might be more appropriate?)