Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
hehe, I love math.GM :-) Publishing on the arxiv is a double-edged sword.
Unlike Andy, I am comfortable enough in my mathematician pedigree that I have the math.GM list sent to my real e-mail address. Though for comedy I find general physics and hep.th more reliable on a day-to-day basis.
Thank you, Steve, I was just thinking the same thing. I've seen statements by some pretty famous people on blogs admitting to their arXiv vs snarXiv sins.
@Steve: oh yes. I've discovered that just this past weekend. I'm actually pretty good at it thanks to my physical proximity to the other maths department at my current home institution (and the fact that I crash their seminar lunches for free pizza).
@Craig: I don't see how it relates to your original question either. But your non-answer to Robin Chapman's query certainly didn't help. The open-ended nature of your question is essentially asking us to reproduce our research statements that we write for job/grant applications.
This is not a question about MO, so it doesn't belong on meta. This question has already been closed twice on MO, so you already know it's not appropriate there either.
Yes.
@Craig: I resent that characterization of what I wrote.
Why can't I get a single answer to this question and why was this question closed on MO? I wonder.
Because MO is not the place to ask it.
When Scott suggested you go to meta, he meant to ask about whether the question was acceptable (which it isn't), not to ask the question itself.
Roy: MMO is, as I understand it, primarily is for discussing the workings of MO, and not for providing a home for the kind of discussion thread which Craig seems to desire. See Qiaochu's comment above.
That said, I want to venture one "off-topic" remark: I don't think your list should be expanded - indeed, there are several items on it that in my view need serious clarification/development, possibly even excision. It seems like you want an anthropological study done by getting the subjects of the study to do the work for you.
Craig: I suggest that if you sincerely want an answer to your original question, you go and discuss it with some professional mathematicians over a beer, coffee or other social beverage, or chat with them on whichever electronic forum (e-pub?) people use for such things.
@Craig,
yes, you misunderstood my intent. I wanted to suggest that if you didn't understand why your question was closed, you should ask on meta, or argue there against the closure.
@Robin: Is there any reason why all of your posts are in poem form?
;)
@Robin: From a professional mathematician to a more established professional mathematician: I don't think it's necessary to make disparaging comments to amateur mathematicians. I think everyone here knows that having a paper posted on the "General Mathematics" branch of the arxiv is a far cry from being published in a refereed journal. I'll bet even Craig Feinstein knows this in some sense, or at least that he has been told so several times before.
This is just my opinion, of course. Some would call my attitude patronizing. I think of it like this: if you have managed -- against steep odds and heavy competition -- to make a permanent living doing mathematics, you might as well be a gracious winner.
If you have managed -- against steep odds and heavy competition -- to make a permanent living doing mathematics, you might as well be a gracious winner.
Can't you guys just act like rappers and be anything but gracious winners? It's funnier to watch. ;)
@Harry: I thought that's where you came in... =)
Dear Craig,
Regarding your initial question, about mathematicians' motivation for doing mathematics: As you probably know, the Notices of the American Math Society are freely available on the AMS website, and frequently contain interviews with celebrated mathematicians (in particular with Abel Prize winners, if I am remembering correctly); it is also easy to find online interviews with various recent Fields Medal winners. If you read these interviews, you will get a sense of the motivations of these mathematicians, and I don't think that there is that much reason to believe that the motivations of less celebrated mathematicians are particular different. This seems like a more fruitful way to understand the motivations of professional mathematicians than attempting to survey MO users. (As others have already noted, conducting such surveys is not really appropriate for MO, which is suppose to be a place for questions of interest to research mathematicians, not questions about research mathematicians.)
@Robin: I appreciate your response. Please feel free to contact me personally if there is anything else to be said. Respectfully...Pete
Roy's mention of Terry's article reminded me that Alain Connes also wrote something on this subject. http://noncommutativegeometry.blogspot.com/2007/02/good-mathematics.html
As you can see, there are many different perspectives on this issue.
A valid question along these lines would concern a list of references about motivations for doing mathematics. Come to think about it, such a question may have already been asked... Anyway, "Mathematics people" and its sequel are good older complements to current interviews in the Notices.
1 to 43 of 43