Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Todd, yes mainly but not only I meant the question you link to, sorry for not being more precise. I am a bit hesitant to elaborate on what I mean, as I do not want to draw some uninvolved party into this; so let my say clearly that I do not consider what I describe below as problematic and yes the user uses the site certainly in good faith, it is merely for illustration of the difference of behavior of the community.
The question you mention as written is, yes, sort-off a career question. However, I cannot help but feel that the main point was to draw attention to the thesis itself. The link to it was posted as an answer not even only a comment despite a explicty request beforehand not do so.
And there is also http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71979/flat-lie-algebras where the last two lines (the link to the authors work) at least do not seem inevitable for the question. And, if the questioner has a paper on arXiv since years, what's the point of the other question? Why not ask the coauthor or other people involved in the thesis?
Perhaps there are good reasons for this, and even if not, as said, I do not see a big problem.
Actually, if we want Doron to tell us more about his method, we should ask him in a different fashion. I don't think opening the question will convince him one way or another.
If he would acknowledge requests about how he presents himself on MathOverflow (even if he were to say explicitly "I want to do it my way."), I might change my feelings about how he might participate. For now, to me he is as likely as not to acknowledge (much less respond) to any request put to him on MathOverflow.
Gerhard "Responds To Responsibility of Responding" Paseman, 2011.08.10
Gil: not the 'divisor' badge? :P
I'd actually be thinking of commenting that this was one of the most virtuosic trolling performances I've seen in a long time. By that I mean someone successfully pulling an internet conversation way way off-topic and provoking strong emotional responses in the legitimate users (that is the people who regularly use the site and use it in the usual ways). The money reward, the fact that he already knew the answer, the fact that he asked a question about specific numbers instead of about an algorithm, the fact that his comments were mostly about who should "win" the reward based on having a certain number rather than about the mathematical content (that is the algorithms).
I generally agree with Gil's comments on meta, and I've mostly stayed out of this discussion because I figured there was too high a chance of Gil being right and me being wrong. But I'm quite baffled about why you're still defending DZ's actions. DZ's behavior seems to me to be clear abuse of the site and disrespectful of everyone using it.
Well, perhaps those that have so much problem with this question (and related developments) could simply stop 'fanning the flames'; for example commenting on a comment two days after it was posted (in part visibly uninformed about the context), calling for deletion of a question,...
How does this saying go: if you point a finger at somebody, four point back at you.
This thread presents (to me) a convincing reason that we should not encourage questions like this. Imagine if MO has a similar one every week (-:.
Having said that, I don't think we should delete the question. Although many of us, including me, believe that this question is not appropriate for MO, the drama that follows was largely our own creation. So it is a bit unfair to delete the original question. Eventually everyone will calm down, and this matter does not really deserves that much attention, and I hope we will all come to that conclusion.
@quid: to be fair, I think both sides overreact here. I agree that some of the comments following Joro's post on page 2 were unnecessarily harsh. Probably things blew up because people have been quietly discomforted by this discussion.
Hailong,
"...the drama that follows was largely our own creation." Agreed. I don't see that DZ has done anything remotely resembling trolling MO---to me, someone who is not involved at all in the controversy over this question, all the heat is coming from the discussion of whether the question is appropriate for MO, and mostly from those against. In this context I found your previous comment "This thread presents (to me) a convincing reason that we should not encourage questions like this." quite amusing!
Storkle,
If I can turn the conversation into "amusing" mode, then I am happy!
More seriously, perhaps my point was simply: questions like these are unlikely to make the site more harmonious (largely due to our own shortcomings), so we should avoid them.
Would we speak to any colleague like this, in person, face-to-face?
One should ask them outright, if their thoughts are of interest.
DZ was asked in the comments, and he didn't respond. I don't think the analogy to face-to-face conversation holds water: in a face-to-face conversation, my first response would have been "why do you want to know? Aren't you quite familiar with techniques for solving such problems?" and none of this would have happened.
I agree that this discussion could have been more professional, and I bear part of the blame. I apologize for that. I was trying to respond to what seemed to be unprofessional behavior on DZ's part, veiled in such a way that people not familiar with the subject (and with DZ's own credentials in that subject) would not see that there was an issue. Perhaps I should have chosen my wording more carefully.
one should drop him a note to clarify what he means. Second-guessing a colleague's thoughts is not productive. One should ask them outright
He was asked outright. Very early on. I wish he had responded, before the discussion had gone so far.
In the interest of making a positive suggestion: Gil, as a friend of DZ, would you be able to find out what his purpose was in posting? I think you tried to ask something similar in the comments; would he be more responsive in email do you think?
Nilima,
I agree. There seems to be a culture clash here that is causing some confusion: some regular users are upset that DZ has been somewhat opaque about his motivation for asking and does not respond to queries publicly here or on the main site, while others (you and me, for example) are dismayed by the resulting complaints and uncharitable speculation about his motives, as we do not see that DZ has any responsibility to respond to questions posed on public threads.
I also agree with GK's perception that reactions to this question are based as much on DZ's other opinions (and Opinions) as the question itself.
Todd, So you think that asking him here, on MO, counts as asking him outright? I'm not so sure. Certainly sending him an email or talking to him by phone or in person counts.
Hailong, I am, generally speaking, very impressed by your composure and congeniality!
Will, "Discussions on Meta are not actual conversations." No, they are much more public! For that reason it seems wise to be more polite to your colleagues on the internet than you are in person (especially when factoring in the additional information (inflection, body language) that is missing online, which makes misunderstandings more likely).
"So you think that asking him here, on MO, counts as asking him outright?"
Well, Storkle, you're asking me outright right here, aren't you? The answer is: yes. I assume he read the comments. He is under no compunction to respond (just as no one is compelled to respond to email), but since there were repeated requests in the beginning, I think it would have been a nice gesture to do so. Don't you?
Although I've had very brief email contact with him (in response to one of his Opinions, which he gracefully acknowledged in an addendum), I don't feel I know him well enough to email about anything that's taken place here.
Point 4 makes the whole situation make a lot more sense.
Thank you Will. I hope this brings an end to this exciting episode.
I second closing the thread soon. I also think that my comments earlier in the thread were ill-advised, and given the circumstances renounce them.
The question that was meant to be asked was: "I have a new technique for computing X, and I'd like to know how it compares to known techniques. How fast is the current state of the art." Is there any objection to my editing the question by inserting something saying roughly that? (I wouldn't remove any of the current content.)
Noah, as long as you make it clear that it is your rephrasing, I think it should have been done long ago.
I appreciate that there is an acknowledgment, if indirect. I offer my services to Prof. Zeilberger to rewrite any question he wishes to present in a form suitable for MathOverflow.
Gerhard Paseman, 2011.08.11
Dear Will, thank you for the great work!
I think this thread has served some really useful purpose. Next time we are in this situation this one can be used to remind us that: 1) Some preemptive editing of controversial questions could be really helpful; 2) Most of the drama could be our own creation; 3) A simple solution like what Will did could save a lot of troubles.
Can I say one more thing: Storkle, thanks for your kind words, they made my day!
Edited and voted to reopen.
I am also happy to renounce some of my earlier words. I thank Will Jagy for taking the initiative here, and I am very glad Professor Zeilberger responded.
Todd,
Perhaps I was mistaken, but because of Nilima's statement
"One should ask them outright, if their thoughts are of interest. No, queries on meta don't translate to asking outright - it is conceivable that he does not wish to get embroiled in this rather public discussion."
I assumed that the word "outright" (as used by Nilima) meant a direct query by email, phone, or in person. Perhaps you thought the bit "queries on meta" was meant to be interpreted as distinct from queries on main MO, and I think that's a reasonable interpretation, but probably not what Nilima meant (was it?). Probably it's not worth worrying about too much.
Dear Storkle: I agree, let's not worry about it. Despite some heat throughout the exchange, I think just about every one who participated in the thread is reasonable enough that we can all just metaphorically shake hands, take something useful away from this, and move on. At least I hope there are no permanent hard feelings.
I agree that the question should not be deleted, but I don't understand why it should be reopened. The challenge has been won and it is now past due anyway. What benefit would new answers have?
Also, I think that Noah's edit reads a bit much into Zeilberger's explanation: there is nothing about the "state of the art" in what Zeilberger wrote, it looks like he only wanted to know whether computing p_60(10^100) was doable using known methods.
I agree with François. Also, please note that the first reopen vote was a mistake, see the 21st comment of the original question.
Doesn't "state of the art" just mean "what you can do with known methods"?
Anyway, I don't think this question if reopened will attract much more attention. It already has an accepted answer, so it won't pop up to the main page very often.
I had to look it up. To save others some trouble, here is what the OED says:
state of the art: the current stage of development of a practical or technological subject; freq. (esp. in attrib. use) implying the use of the latest techniques in a product or activity.
I guess Noah is correct, though the phrase is frequently used to mean something stronger.
May I ask 10K+ users for more tolerance when closing/deleting questions? Suppose DZ asked anonymously and just before deleting his unanswered question someone wrongly insulted him badly. The article he will write might asymetrically hurt MO's reputation more than say 100 open questions with negative votes where cranks give clearly wrong proofs of famous conjectures. In addition you can't technically stop a motivated crank because at least of (open) proxies and one time accounts.
@joro: While I agree with your sentiments in your last post, I have to point out that
In addition you can't technically stop a motivated crank because at least of (open) proxies and one time accounts.
is rather besides the point. In regards to crank the moderation of the community should aim at effectively stop not completely stop. If it means the moderators having to play whack-a-mole for a few weeks, so be it.
(This also reminds me of an after-dinner chat at a workshop a few years ago, where from the shared experiences it was revealed that mathematicians are often automatically washed from serving jury duty because prosecutors know that mathematicians and physicists tend to confuse beyond reasonable doubt with absolute certainty and 5-sigma level of confidence respectively.)
Question is open! Future users may now cite this question as evidence for "why my post should not be closed".
Dear Joro,
I think the heated nature of this conversation has given you a too negative impression of how the process works. Usually most questions are closed with justified reasons (by the way, to vote to close you only need 3K). In addition, anyone can open a meta thread to keep a question open (a very recent example is this one. Finally, deletion is quite rare, I have never voted to delete one, and even in this case most people disagreed with deletion.
After all, the question is now open, even though many people (myself included) think it is not an appropriate use of MO (Of course, as Professor Kalai rightly pointed out, it is a subjective opinion).
The article he will write might asymetrically hurt MO's reputation more than say 100 open questions with negative votes where cranks give clearly wrong proofs of famous conjectures.
The strength of MO lies in its ability to answer (not too difficult) technical questions reasonably well, since getting stuck is such a frequent experience in our life. If it keeps doing that job, it will be quite hard for an article to hurt its reputation, even if it is written by someone of Professor Zeilberger's stature and reputation in the mathematical community.
Will Jagy, thanks a lot for your initiative on this!
Gerald Edgar, it might be a bit ironic, but if you read the meta thread and study the timeline you might notice that it is you who is to a considerable extent responsible for the reopening. Since I consider the final turn of the discussion, for various reasons (whether the question is open or not is a detail), as quite fortunate, I am (at least in retrospect) also grateful for your contribution.
The precedence-issue is certainly something to keep in mind, but then I think one also should not overdramatize this risk. For one thing, as François Dorais mentioned a while ago: C'est l'exception qui confirme la règle.
Looking back at the discussion I can see points where I could and should have been less confrontational. I appologize to those negatively affected by this.
Will,
I (third?) the thanks for you sending email directly to DZ, which, in light of the resolution it brought, is the most productive contribution anyone has made to this thread. I'm also very grateful to Nilima for the original suggestion.
An aside on closing and deleting...
The only effect of closing a question is to prevent further answers from being added. There are many legitimate reasons to do that. (Albeit, the stock reasons that the software provides are not always self-explanatory.) Generally, there is no reason for posters to feel stigmatized when their questions are closed. Moreover, closing should never be used in a punitive manner -- such inappropriate actions will be notoced by the moderators who will then take appropriate measures. (Downvotes are the appropriate way to express disapproval of a question or answer.)
On the other hand, deletion is a much more drastic measure that should be used with great care. Worse still is deletion by way of flagging as spam/offensive, which comes with an additional 100 pt penalty to the poster. Needless to say that this should be reserved for extreme cases.
François:
Generally, there is no reason for posters to feel stigmatized when their questions are closed.
You may claim that there's "no reason" to feel stigmatized, but remember that all people feel a little embarrassed when they are publicly shamed, no matter how trivial the transgression.