Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Community: Duplicates from Math.SE

Bottom of Page

1 to 13 of 13

  1.  
  1.  
    I believe this might warrant some discussion among the community.

    Yesterday I asked a question about the meaning of the phrase "in the sequel", which was ultimately decided to be and closed as off-topic (http://mathoverflow.net/questions/33730/in-the-sequel-outdated-mathematical-jargon-or-precise-technical-term-closed). It turned out, however, that pretty much the exact question (except with much better phrasing) was posted a day or so earlier on Math.SE (http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/907/correct-usage-of-the-phrase-in-the-sequel-history-alternatives) and had received a very satisfying answer. That I hadn't seen the question on Math.SE is an unfortunate side-effect of me not knowing about Math.SE at the time of posting the question.

    What, if any, should the policy be toward duplicate questions from Math.SE? Even though Math.SE is intended for a lower-level (or just different) audience, it is conceivable that questions of interest to MO could be posted and answered in Math.SE. (it is unclear to me, and also unimporant, whether my question was of interest but a duplicate, or whether it was not of interest and belonged on Math.SE only). Do we encourage MO users to search both MO and Math.SE for possible duplicates? Should Math.SE be mentioned in the FAQ/how-to-ask-good-questions? Can/should the two sites be linked together in the box of similar questions that appears when one enters the title of their question?
  2.  

    A comment: All of the cool guys at MO are calling the math stackexchange site "MathUnderflow". You should register there and vote it up (peer pressure).

    • CommentAuthorMariano
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2010
     

    Harry, as far as I've seen (which is, to be honest, not much) you are pretty much the only one calling it that way :P

    • CommentAuthorAndy Putman
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2010 edited
     
    @Mariano : Perhaps the implicit message in Harry's post is that he is an island of cool surrounded by squares. At least in regards to me, he is correct.

    @Harry : What are the cool gals calling it?
    • CommentAuthorbbischof
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2010
     
    @Andy I am more of a rhombus :/
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2010 edited
     

    @Mariano: Naw, I'm just the most vocal about it.

    @Andy: Also MathUnderflow.

    For the record, "all the cool guys are doing it" is a joke about old after-school specials. "Hey, you want some PCP? All the cool guys are doing it! Don't you want to be cool, man?"

  7.  

    @Vladimir: the funny part is, this question duplicates a question on meta.math.SE. Except I guess the arrows are in the other direction.

    For now, I am fine with there being no need to close a question on one site because it duplicates a question on the other. Answers to the same question should still be geared towards different audiences. Maybe I will change my mind later.

    • CommentAuthorWillieWong
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2010 edited
     

    @Qiaochu: were you trying to say that the 'meta' functor is contravariant?

    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2010 edited
     

    @Willie:

    Booooo!

  10.  

    My opinion on the original question is that if an answer exists on math.SE then it should simply be linked to. If it's a question that would normally be closed on MO then it should be closed, and although we can't officially say "as duplicate" we can do as I did in this case and link to the math.SE question. If it's a question that wouldn't normally be closed, then I think that a CW answer saying "see this question on math.SE" would suffice. On borderline questions, if it exists on math.SE then I would be more inclined to close it on MO than otherwise.

    On the whole, I don't think that people should view MO as the only place to find answers. We already close questions if the answer can be easily found on wikipedia or via google or on the nLab. I would happily see math.SE added to that list.

  11.  
    Hi Vlad! Regardless of whether you knew about my question, I see no reason for me to make a fuss about it in particular - this was a question free of mathematical content, posted on MO as a CW question anyway, and you are a good friend of mine. Besides, I was the one who was (just barely) embarrassed enough not to post it on MO*. But in general I would say that I agree with Andrew Stacey's reasoning - my preference would be for little to no repetition (unintentional or otherwise) from Math.SE to MO (the other direction does unfortunately seem to be an increasingly popular method of accumulating points on Math.SE, because they appear to have no similar expectation that the askers have googled their question...). I suppose, as Qiaochu suggested, questions which admit vastly different levels of answers, depending on the audience, ought to be allowed to be asked on both.

    * though apparently not enough to use a pseudonym, which baffles even myself. I guess I was too lazy to log out and make one up.
  12.  
    Hi Zev!

    I actually laughed out loud in disbelief when I clicked the link and saw it was you who posted the question on Math.SE. That's one epic string of coincidences.

    In case it's not clear, I don't have any grudges about my pseudo-duplicate question being closed (though I do think it is of interest to non-native speakers of English that do/read research math, which is why I posted it).

    I agree with Qiaochu's and Andrew Stacey's reasonings as well.
    • CommentAuthorRoy Maclean
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2010 edited
     
    Coincidence, or something in the memesphere or argotsphere.

1 to 13 of 13

  1.  
Back to Discussions Top of Page