Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Hello,
I have asked a question regarding usefulness of mathematical open problems. The question got closed immediately , Can someone tell me why ? Now I noticed a serial down-voting. Why is that so ?
Anyway here is the question .
Thanks !
Yes, I do know the reason. I was involved in an argument supporting someone's ( Charles Matthews ) question earlier, as it was good. There are no days for Good in this world. Yes, the stupid politics are here too ! I never thought that a place where realized mathematicians are present is so worse and flooded with local politics and fights for reputation. People never change.
@Emil J : Well, I have asked many questions previously and formatting is not a problem. BTW, if you have some suggestions, I am ready to take them. I didn't include any un-parliamentary vocabulary . Well, that is surely due to previous incident.
The question seems OK to me. None of the closers have bothered to explain their reasoning, either in the comments thread or here on meta. I have therefore voted to reopen.
By the way, Shanmukha, I advise you to avoid inflammatory wording like 'Bloody politics VS search for justice and judgement'.
I'll add my voice to the chorus that the question doesn't seem terribly objectionable. I'm also certain it has nothing to do with "politics" or a vendetta or anything of the sort -- professional mathematicians are generally busy people who have little time for drama with non-professionals they don't know. I suspect it's just a judgment on the part of the closers that MO is not a good site for this type of question.
I'm not sure what this "history" mentioned by voloch is, but it sure looks to me as if the OP is posting under a real name, and is someone interested in mathematics although not a mathematician. Despite some questions about Birch--Swinnerton-Dyer, I'm pretty sure this individual is not Iyengar/trustgod.
@HRJW, @DL : Thanks ! I have changed the title. I got little worked up, as the question got closed unnecessarily ! But now I have changed the title of the meta thread.
@Voloch : Well, History ? I don't really understand what you are speaking about. I don't have any damn need to use alias names, I have a real name and I care a damn for reputation, ( as I saw somewhere in meta threads , that some people, create multiple accounts to up-vote their questions by themselves ) . I just came to learn something here, for proving the authenticity of my statement, you can change my reputation to zero ( If you are having privileges ) and make me just ask questions. Then you can understand whether I crave for knowledge or reputation . I have published all my background and no aliasing going on around.
Please justify your statement !
@Todd : Thank you Todd, for your words. Well, can you just throw some light, on why my question got closed ? I don't really understand. I saw many questions of this type, receiving answers. What is the problem with this one ? Well, who is that trust-god or Iyengar ? People have been bothering me about that name , since from the beginning. What does the Trustgod or Iyengar has to do with me ? Do you think they are my alias accounts ( This is not for you Todd, for those who think I use multiple accounts under alias names ) ? If so prove it to me.
@Michael Greinecker : Well, I have referred to many popular maths books, including the Clay mathematics book by Arthur Jaffe, I didn't find any such description about usefulness. Well, if that is the case, many questions asked here, their solutions are present in some or the other book.
Shanmukha: further to my recommendation that you modify you not use excessively heated language, the word 'damn' is also best avoided in professional or polite circles (such as this forum).
@HJRW : Well, closing my question, again and again made me use such words. I am polite, but I am aware of the saying, be a roman when you are in Rome. Well, the question got closed and closed repeatedly without any reason and hence its annoying me. Well, I don't really know, why can't the people, who close the question, leave a comment, suggesting the reason behind closing.
@Michael Greinecker : Well, I didn't predict the future, I saw the question having close count - 3 . With another vote, it would be closed and the time, I posted the comment, the question was closed already .
@Shanmukha: I don't think I can shed much light; maybe the other closers will speak up. Michael Greinecker's response as to why he closed seems reasonable to me. Generally speaking, practical usefulness of mathematics comes about very gradually from general theory that is developed to solve problems (or so I believe), in ways that are unexpected and practically impossible to predict. So I see this as a crystal ball kind of question for which no one has a real answer. That might explain why it was labeled as "not a real question", although I should caution you that that and other descriptors like "off-topic" are taken from a brief list provided by the software, over which we have no control.
It can take a little while to figure out how things work at MathOverflow, particularly what makes a question a good fit. Focused questions that indicate a very high level of mathematical competence and that someone should be able to answer precisely are always acceptable. Softer questions like the one you asked are usually looked at askance and may have a harder time being accepted. But having a question being closed should not be taken personally (as you have done) -- this can also happen to users who are generally held in the highest regard but who ask too "soft" a question.
Iyengar (aka "trust god") was another user we had issues with; don't worry about him. He used to say "touching your feet" as a token of gratitude, which Will Jagy says is not associated with you. However, if I were you, I would avoid not only the inflammatory language and the "damns", etc., but also language like "Peace be unto you all!" (or whatever it was in your question). It's not that that's a bad or offensive thing; it's just overly effusive and considered inappropriate for MO. (Also, it's things like this which might be reminding people of users like Iyengar who also used overly effusive language and was told, repeatedly, to cut it out.)
@voloch : Well, if you keep on saying and saying that I am Iyengar/trustgod, it would be like saying, you are some X or Y, disguised as voloch. Please be careful before shouting your mouth off ! I told already I have nothing to do with Iyengar or trustgod, and I don't really understand who are they. Well, being a mathematician you must prove your statement, well, baseless assumptions are not valid here.
@Todd Trimble : Thanks ! I see some point in your statement. Well, I didn't ask about future upcoming applications, but already expected applications. Well, many theories , and conjectures , which are suspected to be true, are concentrated much for the usefulness or applications , rather than proving it. As they know, that they will be true anyway, and many of the theorems and theories , have a condition stating, this will be true if only ' so and so conjecture ' holds good. I hope people ( Computer scientists and others ) already figured out the applications.
As an example, I can say that Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture ( Listed as first problem in Clay Mathematics Wikipedia article ) has an application in cryptography. Well, I have asked about figured out applications of X , when the Conjecture X is true. That can't be always found in books . If it is found, please provide me some references, you can see I kept reference-request tag for the same purpose.
Well, This is a month of Christmas eve, and hence I used Peace be upon you all , as a wish. Well, it doesn't have anything to do with atheists or theists or agnostics ! Its a general wish more popularly known as Shalom in Hebrew. It has nothing to do with religion, and its not offensive, if someone wishes for other's peace. Well, please do tell me , in case its offensive .
@gilkalai : Thanks for your suggestion. The reason for my transformation from kind to blatant style, is accounted for the warrant-less closing of my question. At-least they could have left a small comment as you did. Anyway , do you want me to delete the question ? I don't find any delete button there . How can I do it ?
@Shanmukha: no, of course it's not offensive (as I already said). But here's a general rule of thumb: the sole focus of an MO question should be on the mathematics, because that is the only reason why people come to MO. Just get right to the point, without any greetings at all (no matter how pleasant they may seem). Anything else will be seen as a distraction.
@Todd Trimble : Ok , I refrain from using such things further ! Thanks !
@Will Jagy: please do not encourage people to answer quesions that do not want to. Some might follow this request! And then we have all kinds of lowquality and me-too answers. Bad answers are a lot worse than bad questions. [This is a general statement and should not be read as me implying that Shanmuka would give lowquality answers.]
One more general point: regarding the 'identity question'. My opinion on this is known since right away. It did not change. But then in my opinion in the end it is also somewhat irrelevant; in the sense that I think it is more behaviour that should be banned not individuals. So, if the behaviour is sufficiently different I do not see much problem (whether it is/stays or not, however, remains to be seen).
I think it is more behaviour that should be banned not individuals.
I absolutely agree with this.
Well, @ Todd Trimble, @quid :
My account seemed to be suspended again. I seriously got annoyed seeing it . Its a senseless action. Well, the behavior of every individual depends upon others. I used blatant language due to environment. Here are some reasons, I number my pointers :
Well, Voloch, kept on throwing baseless assumptions that I am some trustgod/Iyengar. I have already told him to prove after he posted the first comment. Again he made the second comment, wont you get annoyed if some user keeps on poking you , calling you as someone else, without proving ? I have no need to disguise myself and I told him that clearly. Second time he again made the same comment. Well, what would be your reaction ? if someone keeps on throwing baseless claims and conclusions ?
Well, my question got down-voted and I didn't hear a single comment initially , stating the reason for down-votes. Well, I saw other questions , being down-voted and closed, with reasons as Home work etc, well, my question didn't get any comments, even after I have asked for.
Well, I take this suspension to be something, which is not justified properly. Well, everyone's behavior depends on the others, its been said, give respect and take respect, well if I got suspended, voloch also must get suspended, due to his baseless claims and creating more trouble. Doesn't the moderators see some partiality towards new and old users ? Well, please answer this .
I already got suspended previously, and then I didn't mind. Now, I will mind, if people who are responsible for suspending me , don't give pin point reasons . I got an email from Francois saying, its due to my behavior. Well, its a generalized term, and vaguely said. I want the pin - pointed reasons, and instances where I crossed my limits, then I can tell you the reasons, why I had to cross my limits and shoot my mouth off .
@quid : Well, don't worry. I don't take comments of Will Jagy seriously and start answering the questions ( I will answer , if I feel to answer, I don't answer by explicit pressure ) . He is not my boss, so that I have to consider his comments in mandatory manner. Its voloch who has to prove his claim as he made proposition. I need not blow the trumpet and prove myself , that I am not Iyengar or trustgod or trustfather .
I agree with your statement regarding low quality answers, It makes sense for me.
To reinforce and supplement what voloch said (as somehow visible by my comment on OP I saw this at the start in "real time"). I think the timeline of events is relevant in various directions.
The question got asked, and was quickly closed. (But score 0 at that time). I would this thus consider a perfectly normal closure. That no comment was left is slightly unfortunate, but alas not at all unique to this question. Thus IMO for the original closure (and closers) this might well have been (essentially) independent of who asked it.
OP edits the closed question to take in some suggestions and makes it CW, leaves the comment asking for a reason. And creates the meta thread. However it did then not have the strong title; but only said 'why was this question closed' (or something equally neutral)
In a very short time the question draws numerous downvotes (6 or more) and three spam/offensive flags. The reason for this to me is less clear, and I think here who asked it (and events in recent history, the one mentioned by OP, and speculative past history) might well have played a role. Although, that if something draws one downvote it is likely to draw follow-up ones is also a general pattern. Also, if attention is drawn to something via edit and meta it can happen as a normal process.
After/while this downvoting happened the title of meta was changed.
The general points I want to make are: the fact that the question was closed is/can be indepent of the asker, and in particular there is no reason to assume that the closers and downvoters/flaggers are the same; also OP until then stayed rather calm. The heavy downvoting IMO rather (unnecessarily) fanned the flames in that it provoked OP. The usage of flags IMO is excessive; the question itself is neither spam nor offensive. In general, I am surprised (since I can now see them) how much flags are used against legitimate (being very bad does not make it spam or offensive) contributions (not only or even mainly against this OP); but I do not want to discuss this general point in this thread.
I'm not sure how productive this discussion is turning out to be, but I'll try addressing one more comment to Shanmukha.
First, I disagree with voloch (and I guess quid as well) about your identity; the only evidence that I can see for such a claim seems rather weak and based on unfortunate coincidences. Also I find it understandable that this repeated speculation would make someone frustrated and annoyed and even angry.
But try putting that aside just for a moment, and see voloch's comments in a different light. If I understand him correctly, he is really just offering a possible reason why others (not him) have been heavily downvoting and flagging as spam/offensive: that they are identifying you with a differently named user who has created problems in the past. (He declares that he also happens to identify you with this user, but in some sense his opinion is irrelevant, since he is the source of neither the downvoting/flagging nor the closing. You are probably better off just thinking to yourself that his opinion of you is simply wrong, as I suppose it is, but that his guess as to why others are downvoting/flagging could very well be correct.)
I think quid's last comment (comment #36) is trying hard to be fair and objective and factually accurate, and definitely gives you some benefit of the doubt no matter who he thinks you are. I and others concur that the flagging as "spam/offensive" is not at all warranted by the question itself. He also guesses that it was based mostly on who people think you are. Who is doing the flagging is unknown to us. Apparently it is nobody you've been directly addressing in this thread.
In case it needs clarification, my last comment was not indicating that I thought you in particular should be banned on account of your behavior (I withhold any comment on that matter), but that in general, a decision to ban temporarily should be on case-by-case instances of present behavior, and not on a person's name or presumed identity. It was more stating my personal position on general policy. My guess, for what it's worth, is that the temporary suspension was based on the heat and anger and personal attacks in your recent responses (such as calling closers "arrogant", "rude", etc.).
Finally, I would like to second Joel Reyes Noches' comment. You are only doing yourself harm by "shooting your mouth off" as you say and attacking people publicly over the internet. As far as I can see, nobody has behaved emotionally toward you. My best advice would be to keep your anger in check, and present yourself as calm and rational and the victim of unfortunate misunderstandings which you hope will be overcome in time. I wish you luck.
@Quid : Thanks ! Your analysis totally makes much sense for me. I have followed your kind suggestion, immediately when you asked me to change the question to CW ( of course, I didn't know what is that 'CW' at that time, but I blindly followed you, as I know every suggestion you give is beneficial for others, at-least that is what I observed from your previous activity ) . Well, now every body is pointing me for my rude behavior, rather than asking themselves, why I had to be rude. I am not a kid, to involve in ice cream fights, and I know my limits and manners. Well, it was such repetitive behavior of others , and reason-less down-votes ( Especially voloch , he kept on blaming me, that I am using aliases, well others said that initially , well I didn't mind then, and I thought that it was a coincidence ) that made me use such words like damn etc.
@General : Well , doesn't everyone of you feel bad, that even communities like MO are separated by these silly politics ? Well, I didn't make any crime previously, I supported Charles Matthews question that seemed to make sense and its good . But I never thought that would leave such a black mark on my profile. Doesn't other users see some partiality going on around here ?
To add something, there is a way to convey everything, like I saw many members here, speaking politely , but yet convey the information ( For instance, Quid and Todd tried to convey the things that other tried to convey but yet in , plain and friendly vocabulary, and I respect them for that, there is a famous saying, " Give respect and take respect " ) .
Well, I take my suspension very seriously ( Previously, I was suspended from MO, because I have used just one ( offensive )flag unnecessarily , now many people used the flags, against my question, even when it is not offensive ) , I keep on opening meta threads ( May be 10000 ) unless I receive proper reply from Moderator ( Francois Dorais ) . Either he has to tell my fault in pin pointed manner , or else he has to to agree that the some users present here misuse their privileges and are full of partiality and separated by silly politics , no other way , equation is clear now. I didn't used rude vocabulary initially, and it was only after the other user's behavior . Treatment is same for everyone, same for old and new users. If they suspended me for using flags, they must also suspend others for doing that .
Well, please respond to me.
@Todd : Ok, Thanks ! I try to keep my anger in control, if given good reasons and explanations as you did.
I'm not François, but I am a moderator who agrees with his decision to suspend.
Shanmukha, no one is forcing you to be rude, and no one is making you use inappropriate language. Everyone here is aware of the context in which you made your comments, and I sympathize with the sense of anonymous persecution that you feel, but that does not excuse poor behavior. We realize that, as you say, you are no longer a child, but we also know that being an adult means there is no good reason for "shooting your mouth off" in public. Because there is no good reason for such poor behavior, we aren't interested in hearing case-by-case explanations. If you feel that people are treating you unfairly, you must refrain from lashing out. Instead, just let us know directly.
As far as fair treatment is concerned, I think all of the moderators strive toward that ideal, unattainable goal. I have certainly made mistakes, but people in the community let me know when I overreach. So far, I am not seeing any pushback from the community on your suspension.
I am glad that you will try to keep your anger in control in the future. I would be even more glad if you hadn't attached any conditions. Please note that no one else on MathOverflow has felt the need to attach conditions to their good behavior.
I don't have an opinion on the main issue here, and in particular I have no reason to disagree with the moderators' actions. However, I was a bit amazed to see people making an issue of the word "damn". No, it's not strictly professional, but it's about the mildest expletive going; is anyone seriously bothered? (Can I imagine the Queen saying it? "One of my corgis has run orf; it's a damn nuisance." Yes, I can.)
@Scott Carnahan : Well, I don't really understand why you people are skipping away from the main issue. Well, you have mocked at me, for my behavior , well I accept that. On the other hand, can't you see the things that went partial so far ?
Can't you notice my points, regarding flagging and other things ? I was suspended for using one flag, unnecessarily, and people used many flags and called my question as offensive and spam. Can't you notice that ?
Can't you notice someone calling me repeatedly as some trustgod/iyengar ?
Well, I don't really understand , why no one is able to give correct judgement. A moderator should support and condemn ( If someone did a mistake ) everyone equally. No partiality ( right ? ) . Well, why is it not so in this case ? You never spoke about the repetitive down-votes that is purely based on personal vendetta that is carried from previous questions ? Well, I hope down-vote should be given based on the quality and the nature of the question. I hope it is not based on new/old user priority, caste, creed etc . Is that the case ?
Please do respond !
There are people involved in this conversation who have a long history of participating in MO constructively, and who the moderators have a good idea about. And there is someone who is demanding all sorts of things, has answered no questions and asked only a small number of questions of which most could be considered 'soft' questions. From a Bayesian point of view it is illogical to treat all participants equally.
@David Robert : So do you mean that there is no equality and someone who has answered ( say ) some 1000 questions can down-vote and flag any question, unnecessarily , in an unwarranted manner ?
Well, its another way of saying, MO supports hierarchy and users who have high reputation , can stamp on budding users and are free to act in any way they like. Well, I don't think so, well if that is the case, please keep this as your word , on MO policy , so that new users can behave accordingly as per the hierarchy . Also specify your, Bayesian argument , and also you can formulate a Bayesian estimator.
Thanks !
Shanmukha, please reread François's email from the first time you were suspended. He did not say that you were suspended only because of the improper flag. I believe the sentence about the flag was general advice (although I confess that it is hard to tell). The other sentence said that your recent actions on MathOverflow were very disruptive, and I believe this was a reference to the string of inflammatory comments you left on Charles Matthews's question about algebraic geometry texts.
I agree with you that spurious spam flags on questions are a problem, but your question is far from the only target, and it is usually possible for the moderators to rectify these. I am also unhappy about people speculating about alternate identities, since it tends to lead to unpleasant and nonconstructive interactions. However, that is happening here and not on MathOverflow.
My moderator powers don't grant me mind-reading abilities, so it is difficult for me to know whether the down-votes on your question are due to a vendetta. I see that you also made an accusation of a vendetta in the comments on Charles Matthews's question. I think it is likely that some users thought these questions were inappropriate, without thoughts of targeting individuals. Was there a specific pattern that gave you the impression that you were the target of a vendetta, or is every down-vote a malicious act in your mind?
Dear Scott Carnahan,
Thank you for the comment. FYI, I am pasting the email I got from Francois, which is intended on using flags. Other users intimated me, that my suspension was due to my improper use of flags ( You can read that in this meta thread ) . Well, any way here is the email I got from Francois :
Dear Shanmukha,
Your recent actions on MathOverflow have been very disruptive. Do not use the offensive flag in ways that it wasn't intended. You are suspended for 2 days to allow things to cool off.
-- François G. Dorais
Well, I do feel that the down-votes is due to the personal vendetta, here are some reasons that support my assertion :
All the previous questions of mine, never got such frequent reason-less down-votes , and well , if you say that, this particular question of mine is not good, Ok , well, I didn't get a single comment, about the quality of the question, or its formatting, and finally users started telling the reasons ( and interesting fact is that all the users who posted in this thread , claimed that they didn't down-vote it )about closing the question ,only after I have opened the meta-thread .
The question was closed twice, without any warrant . Well , I saw silly spam questions, and home work questions, received comments, about their scope and the content, and then got closed. I see a point there. If someone , pointed me about the quality or the scope of that question, and have closed it , I don't mind. All the users who closed my question , didn't state a single reason for doing so. Don't you see some pattern going on here ?
Well, please, give me an explanation for this suspension. I can't take the fact, that I am suspended unnecessarily , that too due to the others. I agree with the fact , that I deserve suspension for misusing the flags. But now, I didn't do anything, and I seriously demand an explanation , from Francois. I was blamed unnecessarily , that I use aliases. My question got unnecessary spam flags.
Well, I take this suspension to be a good one, only if the moderators , impose the same suspension to others, based on the misuse of flags, and teasing and fighting attitude of others, by repeatedly provoking me, that I am using Aliases.
@Michael Greinecker : You provided the so called reason only after creating such mess here. I am not spreading false hoods. Well, don't you know a rule of thumb that you (at-least others who have closed the question ) have to leave a comment justifying your intention behind closing ? I have posted two comments near the question and waited for the reply, and I created the meta thread only, after I didn't hear anything from you and others. Well, if you speak only after opening a meta thread, and creating a mess, then there will be thousands of threads, for each closed question, one new thread.
At the risk of repeating myself, I am not spreading the false hood.
If you and others, have posted their reasons for closing the question, there is no need for opening this meta thread.
