Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
A case of shutting the stable door well after the horse has bolted, but I thought given the length and nature of the comment thread to this question that it could do with a meta thread. This would give people who perceive the violence inherent in the system a better place to explain why the "main police" should stop picking on questions like this. Or something.
I agree with your objections in the comments. This question was not phrased in a way that made it easy to tell what kind of answer the OP would find satisfying.
AGS: sorry to hear that you feel this way, I hope that you reconsider.
For my own part: I wish there were a way to close questions which made it clearer that I feel it is the question which has faults, not the questioner. If I criticize the question, it's because I would like the OP (or someone else, even) to write a better one. And "better" does not mean "more advanced"! As a teacher and former tutor-of-sorts, I feel there is a huge difference between "I don't understand X" and its dreaded cousin "Tell me about X", and "I don't understand how the lecturer/professor/Gromov got from statement A to statement B" or "are there examples of Slithy Toves except for this small list I already know about"?
@anon: I think everyone was trying to be pleasant in that thread. It's easy to misinterpret any action as being jerk-ish if you don't understand the motivations of the supposed "jerk". I'm fairly sure I understand the rough idea of the motivation of everyone that voted to close the thread -- and if you read the FAQ maybe you'll come to understand it too, specifically, the types of questions that MO is about and the how-to-ask tips. That, and the OP didn't really respond productively to the comments. It would be nice to move the conversation towards specifics rather than whether or not people are simply jerks.
I think the point is that nothing "goes wrong" until you decide to use it for something, and since we don't know what sort of applications the OP has in mind the question is underspecified. That said, presumably people who think about the infinite Grassmanian know what it's useful for, and hence could give a reasonable answer. I wouldn't have voted to close this question.
Here is an example of what I am talking about.
In this case the OP does ask, "What are advantages of the Spec approach? Specific theorems?"
But again, one shouldn't need to explicitly state such things to be understood, and questions shouldn't be closed just because the obvious questions that the OP intends to ask are not explicitly spelled out. Plus, if you really think that the question needs to be clarified, then just ask the OP to clarify!!
Granted, this is an old question, and our community has changed since then, but my points still stand.
I think it was utterly obvious what the question was, and the objections that the question was unclear are utterly pedantic and childish.
I think I could mount a stronger objection about making comments like this anonymously.
I think the point is that nothing "goes wrong" until you decide to use it for something, and since we don't know what sort of applications the OP has in mind the question is underspecified.
This was my problem with the question as well.
If this discussion isn't getting anywhere, there's a simple solution: anyone who is convinced the question is actually equivalent to Question X, which is obviously what was intended by the OP and perfectly reasonable, should edit the question accordingly, and then we will presumably all vote to reopen.
I did not say anything on the question but voted to close (and still think it was correct). So, some justification:
I voted when already some comments were around, in particular the questioner had already commented too, but for some reason not replied to Ryan Budney's first two comments. To me they are/were very much to the point. Indeed, the first comment by the questioner suggested to me some confusion about basic notions, and thus this seems good for math.SE but rather not MO. Thus, close.
Now, not to appear like a total jerk, let me add that being confused about something basic, is nothing bad in in my book. Certainly, happens to me from time to time, and I am (too) well past my PhD. But, I also see nothing wrong with consulting a more basic resource for something basic.
There's also always the downvote button, which may be appropriately used if the question is unclear. I can think of an instance where I applied the downvote button, explained why I did so (the specific needs of the questioner were not at all clear from the very broadly posed question), and the eventual outcome was very satisfactory, as I was able to give an answer tailored to the specific needs of the OP, and was sincerely thanked by him.
Quoth anonymousgradstudent:
I think it was utterly obvious what the question was, and the objections that the question was unclear are utterly pedantic and childish.
I don't think you're helping yourself or your cause by being strident like this. Even though I disagree with the people who wanted to close the question, I think they acted in good faith and weren't being childish, jerky, pedantic or whatever. In all aspects of life, but especially on the internet, it's good to give people the benefit of the doubt and make the most charitable assumptions possible when there is ambiguity about their motives, intentions, etc.
I see that it's been reopened, with neither editing nor the reopeners joining this discussion. That's a shame.
I'd like to reiterate the points I was trying to make.
For such a general type of question, the background of the asker is all the more important as it can help answerers figure out what sort of answer would suit. In this case, I had no idea that the asker was a post-doc, and I still have no idea what field they work in. Only in the comments (and that much later on) was it clear where the definition came from (a particular book) - this is important since the tenor of the post is that this is the definition of the Grassmannian, an assertion that is just plain false.
At one point, Fly-by-night says in a comment:
The question was simple: given the application in mind, why do we insist that only finitely many of the xi are non-zero?
The difficulty is that I don't see any application in the question!
Allen's answer is not all that great, unfortunately. It feels like a "Well, this might be the sort of thing you're looking for" kind of answer. The initial statement implies that other models aren't amenable to algebraic-topology tools, which is false, and the "striking example" is extremely misleading as it compares two completely different things that wouldn't normally be compared. Let me make it clear that I don't see this as a particular fault of Allen's, but rather that the question was so vague that this is the best sort of answer that it can get (short of a 5-page detailed exposition of all the different models for BU with their respective advantages and disadvantages).
What I would have liked to have seen in the question was:
The background of the asker: what field are they in (don't know, but not algebraic topology; plus, given the question, an indication of their level of understanding of functional analysis would have helped), what level are they at (post-doc), why (given that alg-top isn't their field) are they interested in an alg-top question, where did they encounter this definition (Milnor and Stasheff's book), which other books have they looked in to find out about this.
Detail on the kind of answer that would satisfy: what techniques are they interested in using from algebraic topology? In particular (in light of the answer(s)), are they really interested in working with actual CW-complexes, or just with things of the homotopy type of CW-complexes?
I saw many comments that were basically trying to draw out this information from the asker, but with no proper responses. That's why I cast the final vote to close.
Dear anonymousgradstudent,
I would appreciate it enormously if you refrained in the future to call jerks —and even involuntary jerks— people who are using their actual names to participate in MO (votes to close, for example, are quite non-anonymous) while remaining anonymous yourself. I don't have any problem with anonymity, and I think people calling people jerks for MO-reasons is slightly silly but manageable (this is the Internet, after all!) but the asymmetry of this particular situation strikes me as very undesirable in a professional site like this.
+1 Mariano.
Something I find particularly unpleasant about this episode is the quantity of comments, some quite rude, from anonymous users. The anonymous OP, "Fly by Night", wasn't exactly rude but was at least unhelpful, I would say, when others suggested that he/she clarify the question. Then "anonymousgradstudent" wrote provocative things here. Then there was an answer to Fly by Night's question by an anonymous user called "stuffin dude" (an account created only today). That answer was simply abusive towards those who thought the original question unsuitable, and was quickly deleted.
So of course, I wonder whether these three anonymous accounts, all on the side of the OP, are really three different people. I'm not making any accusations, and anyway I'm sure the moderators will handle this in their usual capable way. But whether there's sock puppetry going on or not, just the suspicion of it is bad for the atmosphere of the site. Broadly I'm in favour of allowing anonymous accounts, but I think this episode does bring to light one of its hazards.
Here is an 'answer' that was recently deleted from this question. I'm copying to meta since this is what the author apparently wanted.
I'd put this on the meta, but it doesn't allow for anonymous comments.
Why don't you math gods quit preaching and just make your decision to close or not? You can't win by acting like you have supreme wisdom. All you do is get people fired up and in the mood to argue.
Whether a question is suitable is very subjective. Just as much as you need a faq on how to ask questions, you need a faq on when the rulers of the house shouldn't preach. I don't want to hear your long winded rants about why some question isn't suitable.
Someone has to act as the dictator here. Just do it and quit using these times as an opportunity to make out like you're some kind of math god.
The author is stuffin dude.
For users with 10K reputation, the original can be seen here.
Personally I am almost sure the three are different persons. 'stuffin dude' seems like some outsider to the site who tried to be funny (if I remember well, the answer was posted very quickly after the second legitimate answer, so when the question was very visible), or this is pure trolling.
By contrast the contribution of anonymousgradstudent seems very honest to me, perhaps overly so, and it is in some sense valuable. It might not be friendly towards some (at least indirectly, including me), but it raises a legitimate concern, and I think it is better to voice this concern, rather than to leave in silence.
While this has been discussed already several times, perhaps, there is some need for (another) general discussion on which mathematical questions are acceptable on MO; after all several frequent contributors to MO reopened the question. I do not think it would be good to have it in this thread, and somehow I do not want to be the one to start the thread...just a thought that cross my mind when rereading this discussion.
By contrast the contribution of anonymousgradstudent seems very honest to me, perhaps overly so, and it is in some sense valuable.
Agreed.
perhaps, there is some need for (another) general discussion on which mathematical questions are acceptable on MO
I may be misunderstanding your reading of the situation, but let me reiterate: my problem was not with the topic or level of the question, but how it was worded and what it left unsaid, and to some extent with the OP's responses to requests for clarification. This is why I neither downvoted, nor voted to close, nor upvoted, nor voted to reopen.
@quid: you may very well be right that it's three separate people. For the sake of promoting peaceful conversation, let me emphasize that I said nothing stronger than "I wonder".
The main point I wanted to make was that when many of the participants in a conversation are anonymous, and especially when the discussion gets heated, the suspicion of sock puppetry can arise in a way that would be unlikely if real names were used. (Of course, actual sock puppetry can arise too.) It hadn't occurred to me before that this was a side-effect of allowing anonymous users.
Tom Leinster, sorry in case it appeared otherwise, I did not want to be confrontational. Mainly, I wanted to say something somehow in defense of anonymousgradstudent. Regarding the question of anonymity: abstractly, what you say seems certainly true to me; however, in practise, it seems to me that to avoid the type of anonymous contribution we are discussing at the moment would requier a major change of the sign-up procedure, and depending on how it is implemented would exclude all spontaneous contribution or at least restrict it to those possessing, say, (certain) academic email-addresses. Now, perhaps, Fly by Night was actually negatively affected by the self-chosen pseudonymity, but also here the more effective solution in my opinion is something else (cf. below).
Yemon Choi, there are two things. First, it believe that anonymousgradstudent was not only or even mainly motivated by this specific question. It also seems to me that over time the level of MO increased, and whether or not this is good, bad, or neutral, is something one might want to debate (but perhaps also not, and personally I see this rather neutral, so personally I have no strong need to discuss this).
Second, and perhaps of general interested as detailed justification of my voting, which, as I said above, was motivate by 'level', and I still think it was justified in view of what are (or to be precise, what I believe to be) the current standards of MO [but, I would have no problem if the standards were a bit different, and then would adapt to them]: my 'problem' with the question, at the time I vote, that is definitely after the first comment of the questioner (but rather not too much afterwards, though I cannot remember precisely), was that there visibly was some confusion about quite basic things. Considerably later, this also got acknowledged by the questioner, and to me is not at all problematic, except for the fact that it seems to me some do not take into account this developpment when (negatively) judging the voting.
In particular, I do not think it is an accurate description of the situation that (at that time) the true problem/question was really 'what goes wrong with the other definition' (paraphrasing Kevin Walker's reading); in my opinion this question arose only indirectly. As I see it, the original problem was (only) that the definition in the question somehow felt very unnatural to the questioner. (And because this definition felt unnantural while another one felt much more natural, did the idea arise that there must be some immediate or clear problem with the other definition. This is a situation quite different form one where somebody understands one definition as natural and still wonders what would happen with an alternative definition.) Now, Ryan Budney's and Donu Arapura's early comments address precisely this 'unnatural' concern, by giving reasons why the original definition is in fact not an unnatural one in the first place (in particular if one starts from the finite case, as done in the question) and so the question itself should disappear, except in case they should have misunderstood the question (and I together with them). And, then Fly by Night answered not by, say, 'yes, I knew that, but I am still interested what would happen in the other case' or also by 'ah, of course, I missed that, but since I already asked perhaps somebody has some additional insight' but by expressing doubt regarding Donu Arapura's assertion, based on what is really a basic misunderstanding (more or less the same as being confused about the relation between polynomials and formal powerseries). So, that at that point I think one really had good reasons to believe that MO is not a good place to sort out these confusions, which was when I (thus) voted to close. Now, meanwhile, the questioner overcame this confusion and the question was (in my opinion) somehow redefined on the fly, which is fine, and whether or not this redfined question is a good one or not is actually outside my expertise.
Final remark on pseudonymity of the questioner: I agree, in this case, that no information on the background of the questioner was available contributed to the problem. However, to blame this mainly on the nonusage of the real name is in my opinion a fallacy. IMO, a better solution, real name or not, would have been to start or end the question by a line or two of motivation for the question. like: 'I am a researcher in Genral Field F [and for Rough Reason R] I am reading Book B outside my field.'
@quid, no problem at all - I didn't take what you wrote as confrontational. I just wanted to clarify what I wrote previously.
I agree that allowing anonymous users is a net good. I'm in favour of it; but I think this is one of its minor disadvantages.
@Tom, a cursory inspection of the logs suggests the three users you mentioned are independent (or at very least making \epsilon effort to look independent).
@Will: It's helpful that she gave a link to her homepage.
Your example strikes me more as speaking on the perils of presumption than on the afflictions of anonymity.
It is also an example of how adding a little research effort can vastly improve the quality of a post, and reminds me that I should make more efforts in that direction.
It may be time for a "War stories from the battlefront in MathOverflow Quality Posts" thread.
Gerhard "Scholars, Take Up Your Notes!" Paseman, 2011.08.23
Will, I think by common standards this user is a real-name user (cf. Angelo, Dmitri, JSE,...). Thanks for your efforts on the question. And, sorry, for the hairsplitting.
madelina just erased the content of her question but did not delete the question. It's not clear to me if she's invested enough in the process to make it worthwhile to unerase the contents, or perhaps we should simply close the question?
I saw this too, and asked myself the same question. Perhaps rollback, comment explaining why this was done, close as no longer relevant?
That sounds good. Perhaps we should also explain that if her question was answered in the comments she could answer her own question with that comment, and accept that formally as the answer, perhaps with some additional explanation.
Am I getting it right? Somebody commented that the question sounded like undergrad homework; Will then posted his comment about Madalina's website; the former "somebody" subsequently deleted his comment, and now Will looks like a stalker, making Madalina remove the homepage link from her profile and delete the post?
I don't know if you have it right, but I can't find fault with your interpretation, darijgrinberg. Also, if the discussion on this meta thread is being followed, I can point to some remarks which could be very badly interpreted. Not that we should aim to please everyone, but I can see where a slight misunderstanding could turn a potential user away from the site.
If madalina is reading this, I invite that user to comment on how things look from their point of view, so that at least I can modify my behaviour in some regard.
Gerhard "Intends To Behave More Welcomingly" Paseman, 2011.08.23
I sent Madalina an e-mail, seeing if we can't rescue the question and clarify these misunderstandings.
Will, if you do not mind, perhaps you could delete your comment with the content of the webpage. I know it was posted with best intentions, and I believe it actually helped the question. But since it served its purpose while the affected user might (we do not know) not have liked it, perhaps it is good to remove it.
If the user wants to wipe her record off MO, deleting that comment would be the best way to go. IMO that would be a nice gesture to start with -- if she wants to resurrect the question the relevant context can be added then.
Not to cramp your style Will, but if quid can humbly suggest deleting a comment of yours, I think I can meekly suggest editing your (at this writing) 6 word post above. Whether you replace and what with is up to you, but I suggest something like " I'm so sad. I was just trying to be helpful."
Gerhard "Just Trying To Be Helpful" Paseman, 2011.08.23
I've been in e-mail correspondence with Madalina and can confirm Will's comments have not gone down well at all. She's also asked that her original question be deleted and states she never wants to use MO again. I've tried to explain that it was a misunderstanding, that her language made her question look strangely like a calculus homework problem and people were confused. Anyhow, I'd say this is unfortunate.
A bit unrelated regarding the 'send someone packing' of Thierry: one half-way solution to the risk of a 'bad start', is to start anon/pseudonymous. This way, if something goes wrong early on, one has the option to simply restart. [This is no attempt to justify why I am personally pseudonymous; as I am beyond the starting stage, it can't be anyway.]