As I commented, I think there might be a worthwhile question under it, but I don't really agree with the premises of the question (such as the ubiquity or tedium of this course). I was hoping that other people from USian institutions could shed some light on this. In particular, I wanted to know if

I notice that in spite of all this, a course in the number systems continues to be taught in most programs

or

despite the fact most mathematicians deplore the task and most students leave the course wondering what the hell they wasted thier time for.

have actually been observed by others.

Noah: I would suggest that, now we have the meta thread up and signposted, we wait a bit before voting to close, in order to give some of those who are keener on maths-education questions/topics a chance to contribute if they wish.

Scott: I just think that if we wait on this a bit, it will come across better, given the recent discussions on meta about the Arbitrariness of the Illuminati.

Certainly there are other questions which have been popping back to the front page, whose worth I'm not convinced by, and where some of the answers have seemed naive/callow.

@Scott : Good point! I just edited it as above.

Also I'd like to hear from anyone whether this is a case where there's any good reason not to just close quickly. This doesn't actually strike me as a controversial case. The question is quite bad, the user is fond of asking bad questions, and it's not a very popular question in terms of upvotes. My intuition is that this one should actually be non-controversial and a quick close. But I wanted to give people a chance to disagree since closing debates is such a source of agita.

Noah: how do we know this question isn't going to be popular in terms of up-votes, like other popular questions I don't like? Timezones, schedules, and all that.

I really don't see a case for closing. After edits by Andy Putman and Yemon Choi, the current version of the question has none of the defects of the original. At this point, it reads like a garden variety pedagogy question to me.

My feeling is that in its current form, I'd not oppose voting to close. I do think there is a reasonable question hiding in there, namely the one I wrote above. If it were that, then I probably wouldn't vote it up or answer it or anything, but I would probably support its existence.

Alex, thanks for showing up.

That seems a very low bar for voting up, if you agree that it's a very poorly phrased question. Why not vote down and request that the question be changed to a good question? Why do you want to *encourage* the asking of questions like this one?

Noah: although this is off-topic, I feel http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32035/are-nets-and-filters-useful-in-geometry-and-topology was a question founded on dodgy premises and a slightly callow/presumptuous perspective - but it appears to have been popular, despite being of less interest to me than the question I've currently edited Andrew L's into.

I am by now (apart from being amused in a grim kind of way) not strongly opposed to closing. I might add a set-theory tag to see if we get some worthwhile answers from some of the "high-rep" MOers who dig that kinda thang.

Noah: I have more of a problem with revenant questions, which drop off the front page and keep coming back, than with a question like this which I predict might get a few more responses in the next 8-12 hours and then sink.

The fact also remains that you're giving the impression we don't want to give people who might find something in this question time to see it -- and here I have in mind actual professors, people who have to deal with curriculum oddities and what to teach and which arguments to have with syllabus committees. Given that perception of cliquey-ness seems to be a problem MO is going to increasingly face, and given that we get enough grief about closing even more obvious things than this one, I think this is an instance where we actually lose more than we gain if we "pile on".

That said, I am not raising an objection or counter to your vote to close. Just suggesting that we don't need, just yet, to use the Sword of Omens to summon 3k+ users to stamp out this menace.

Yemon: Please do not add tags to this question, let it die quickly. Also, please do not add a "set theory" tag; this is nothing of the sort.

Andres: I won't do any more editing for a while, but I would again hope that we are playing the ball and not the man. By the way, the original poster was asking specifically about a course which starts with Peano, gets N, then gets Z, then gets Q, then gets R. So while it may not be set theory per se ,that seemed the closest fit - but I see you are better placed to judge than I am.

Noah Snyder wrote: "...if you agree that it's a very poorly phrased question. Why not vote down and request that the question be changed to a good question? Why do you want to *encourage* the asking of questions like this one? "

Because I think there is an interesting question in there, if you look past the writing, and the incorrect premise that many universities have an entire course dedicated to the construction of the real number system. It is "do you think there's some reasonable compromise way of presenting this material to students as part of the standard curricula?"

Because I found this interesting, I voted it up, even despite various defects in the original formulation of the question. Perhaps I give upvotes too freely. But I don't see how anyone can deny that there is, after all, an interesting question lurking in there, which deserves to be edited rather than closed. For example, John Stillwell gives an answer arguing that students can't really understand real analysis until they understand the construction of real numbers. If true, this would imply that the standard undergraduate math curriculum needs to be completely restructured. Surely this is exactly the sort of discussion of math education that belongs on mathoverflow?

@Noah, the way to change the "category" of a thread is to edit the first post in the thread. I've done it