Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
applications of the sphere theorem
This question leaves a bad taste in my mouth, not because of the underlying question, but because of the cookie-cutter, no-effort (apparently) way it is asked. The entire body of the question is
I am looking for interesting applications of the 1/4-pinched sphere theorem......[is it just a beautiful theorem or can you use it in concrete situations to derive some conlusions difficult to see otherwise?]
The brackets are mine; that stuff was added after Mariano's comment. Grammar and spelling aside,† this post gives the impression that the asker googled for "list of theorems" and plugged a result into the above sentence. I don't know what the 1/4-pinched sphere theorem says, but I would be somewhat outraged and saddened to see people pouring their time into writing long well thought-out answers to the same question about, say, the Riemann-Roch theorem. Asking others to put in great effort without giving any indication that you even care puts me off. In its current form, this question has my vote to close.
I figured it's worth explicitly listing what this user can do to improve the question:
Information about the purpose of the question is ultimately something only the asker can provide, and it is something that should not be very hard for the asker to provide, so there is no excuse for saying, "whoever wants to can reformulate the question to make it better; I just want answers."
† Checking for use of the SuperMegaEllipsis is a proposed heuristic for immediately detecting bad posts. I think it's a pretty good one.
As I wrote in the comments, I am not sure the question is so bad, but there is clear room for improvement. What Anton suggests would make for a much better question.
As an update, so far the first of Anton's three bullet points has been met. (For good measure, I just edited the question to add a link to the relevant wikipedia article). If the OP can address either the second or the third bullet point, I will be satisfied enough to vote to reopen the question.
@alex_o: I figured somebody take your position, but I didn't want to address it until it came up. Basically, I disagree with your belief that it is a mutually beneficial activity. See the Be Precise section of the How To Ask page for my general thoughts on what is wrong with imprecise questions.
I think lots of mathematicians try to be very helpful in general. This is why MO works in the first place. But when somebody (for whatever reason) asks a question without actually being interested in the answer or without bothering to ask a clear question, it often happens that some helpful person will try hard to answer the question, only to meet disappointment. As an analogy, imagine that somebody comes up to you at tea and asks you to tell them about your field of research. They don't (or won't) tell you about their background, so you think very carefully about how to present your research to somebody with no background. Then, as you are explaining, this person walks away. I hope you see what is outrageous and saddening about this situation. The objection "you wouldn't have started answering the question if you didn't want to" just doesn't hold water.
I think we agree on maintaining high quality of questions on MO. This (paired with what I said above) is one reason cookie-cutter questions raise a red flag in my mind. Questions along the lines of "What is the meaning of theorem X?" or "What are applications of Y?" which do not explain why X or Y were chosen are very easy to ask and hard to answer, so they're a hotbed for situations where the asker is not engaged.
@Pete: I think the question is much better now.
whatever has added the motivation, "I'm just curious", which is okay, but I would really like a bit more about why the OP cares about this particular theorem or how s/he started thinking about it.
@whatever: I realize it's not fun to have people criticize your post. Thank you for not taking it personally, and thank you for editing the question.
Anton, how did you manage to get your vote count as a normal user? Is that one of your super-super-powers that I wasn't aware of? Or maybe there is another reason why your name is second on the closer list.
@François: :-). It's a super-duper-power. I did a little shuffle where I revoked my own moderator powers, voted to close, and then reinstated the ♦s. I was mostly just curious if it would work (on faketestsite, I don't have enough rep to vote to close as a non-mod).
@alex_o: the problem I have with writing great answers to poor questions is that it encourages poor questions. Poor questions should not be encouraged, as this pollutes the environment at MO for everybody.
@alex_o: In addition to Qiaochu's point, I think there are lots of people who have not developed the immunity you describe. Even if good answers to poor questions did not encourage poor questions, I would still rather chase away a dozen poor questions than waste the time of one awesome mathematician and leave her disappointed with MO.
I love analogies, so here's one for the occasion. I know that there are people who follow the links in spam emails, and even people who end up buying stuff (or providing information, or whatever the spammer is after). Otherwise spamming would not be lucrative. Even if those people are satisfied with their purchases, I want to discourage spamming. It pollutes inboxes, wastes (a bit of) the time of people who delete it, and wastes (a lot of) the time of people who don't know better.
I don't find the current version of the question at all offensive; the OP is pretty up-front that his question is one of idle curiosity (as are so many questions on MO!), so responders can take that into account. In any event, I would leave the ethics of cookie-cutter or apparently lazy questions out of consideration; the debate should be about whether this is a 'real' question. To me the question looks like it's fishing around; it's hardly a precise mathematical question.
I've voted to reopen this question. I don't think it was unreasonable when it was asked, and it has been improved since then. My own impressions (certainly non-expert) were that the sphere theorem is one part of a general theme in the study of positive curvature, the object of which is primarily to demonstrate the limitations on the topology entailed by positive curvature. In short, I always viewed the sphere theorem as an end in itself rather than something to be applied elsewhere, and I am curious to hear from experts as to whether this is truly the case.
alex_o: Writing a great answer to a poor question is a waste of energy. Mathematicians are, generally, quite helpful and seem to like explaining stuff. But if the question is poor, who is ever going to read the answer? Why not put that great answer somewhere more visible, say on a wiki? MO is designed for getting answers to questions, and by doing so in public then others can look on and learn as well, but it needs that initial exchange otherwise it is unfocussed and there is no easy way for the others to know that there is something worth learning from.
What you are calling a great answer is not a great answer. It's a great explanation, but to be a great answer it needs to answer an actual question. If it's not possible to discern the question, then it's not possible for it to be answered, and so anything written as an answer is not actually an answer.
1 to 19 of 19