Not signed in (Sign In)

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

Is this question acceptable?: How did you discover your interest in mathematics?

Bottom of Page

1 to 42 of 42

  1.  
    • CommentAuthorRyan Budney
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2010 edited
     
    Regarding this closed question: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/48995/how-did-you-discover-your-interest-in-mathematics

    I think we should have a discussion about appropriateness. The question was closed and now has 2 votes to re-open.

    I see little merit to the question, myself. I mean, it could potentially generate interesting responses but the subject isn't really appropriate for MO as it's too personal and not really specific to mathematics.
  2.  

    Agreed. Belongs on a blog.

  3.  

    Definitely too discussiony / personal.

    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2010 edited
     

    Third undergrad in a row to post in this thread.

  5.  

    Combo breaker.

    • CommentAuthorfedja
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2010
     
    I would ask to edit it in response to various comments but to close it is too much. It can, certainly, generate interesting answers and it relates to mathematics rather directly. I,for myself, am much more interested in what brings people to math. today and how they view the whole enterprise than in what joke John told Jane 30 years ago or who was the first to call a crocodile a crocodile. We've got a lot of questions like the latter and they always pass. I also do not see what is "discussiony" about it: a story is a story; you can comment on it but what is there to argue about? It is "personal", yes, but nobody is forced to reveal his "personal information" if he doesn't feel like it, so what's the point?

    MO definitely became more of a "socializing site" than had been planned originally: even as far as pure math. problems are concerned, we are getting more and more of the type "I've thought of that recently and it seems curious enough to share with you" as opposed to the type "I lack this lemma for that, can you help?". I see nothing wrong with that as long as the discussions are meaningful and interesting for the MO participants.
    • CommentAuthorbbischof
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2010
     

    I am torn about this. I would love to read the answers to this question, but I do feel like it goes against the main mojo of MO. (booya alliteration!)

  8.  

    I guess that the question "what brought you to mathematics" is of much less interest to those who already are mathematicians than to those who are thinking of becoming mathematicians. But I do think that the question might be able to generate some interesting responses, and as fedja says, sharing this information is voluntary. Also, the question is much less argumentative than for example the recent question of Tim Gower, which got over 40 upvotes. I personally don't see how MO would be harmed by the presence of such a question. Whether the OP would be helped is an entirely different matter, but that shouldn't be our concern.

    • CommentAuthorWillieWong
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2010
     

    (@bbischof: IMHO "major mojo of MO" is even better.)

    More seriously: while the question is now (re)opened, I agree with fedja that the question needs some editing.

    • CommentAuthorgilkalai
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2010
     
    While not an oridinary MO question, I am quite curious about potential answers, and I think we have much better chance to draw interesting answers (or links) on MO compared to a blog. It also have some potential in view of the mathematicians who hang around MO and may contribute answers to have some real value. So I support keeping it open.
    • CommentAuthorHJRW
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2010
     

    I feel pretty strongly that this question is inappropriate for MO. I agree that it's good 'as far as that sort of question goes', but MO is completely the wrong format. As currently worded, I think everyone will have an answer.

    There may be an acceptable question in there - something along the lines of

    'How do you persuade someone that mathematics isn't just "some pretty dull multiplication-related stuff designed for people who didn't have enough creativity to tell a good joke"?'

    but the current question is a long way short of that.

  12.  

    It probably won't surprise anyone to learn that I don't think that this question is appropriate for MO. It would be quite an interesting discussion to have in a pub, but as yet we don't have "Maths.Pub" up and running.

    Of course it's interesting, getting a glimpse of what motivates other people is interesting, but that's not what MO is for.

    I'd like to respond to fedja's comment:

    MO definitely became more of a "socializing site" than had been planned originally

    If the social aspect of MO ever becomes more than a happy byproduct, that will be the end of MO. I do enjoy the fact that I'm getting to know other mathematicians through MO (even one or two in my own department!), but that isn't why I visit MO. I'm getting to know other mathematicians through their mathematics. The difference between this and, say, reading papers on the arxiv is that I get to see smaller chunks of what people are thinking about, and get to interact. But it needs to stay focussed on the mathematics, otherwise it becomes just another Reddit or facebook-type site, and all its actual value goes down the plug-hole. People don't "come for the socialising, stay for the mathematics", they "come for the mathematics, stay for the mathematics". The social aspect comes in simply because, as human beings, we can't focus that strongly on one thing for that long.

    It's like working in a library. It's good to take a break, step outside, have a chat with anyone else who happens to have stepped outside, but if we stay outside then we may as well have been in the tea shop, not the library.

  13.  

    I found Andrew's argument quite convincing, so I voted to close. I think fedja was right that MO has become more socializing, perhaps because of its rapid success, but ultimately my main reason for participating is the (selfish) hope that I can get my technical questions answered.

  14.  

    I'm happy that this is closed. Questions which admit "dark and stormy night" answers are almost certainly beyond the pale.

    I remember Ben making a good point about this kind a question back in the prehistory of MO: if you want to ask questions about this sort of subject, you have to work out the question which admits a definitive answer. I can't think of one right here, but the general idea was that instead of asking "What works for you in the classroom?", one could ask "What classroom methods have been studied and formally evaluated?"

    An optimist would say that these "definitive" versions will very likely be more useful to later readers.

  15.  

    I agree as well that the question is not MO-appropriate, though it could be fun to read some of the answers.

    I find it interesting that though the question has 16 upvotes, it never received any answers. (Admittedly it spent some time being closed, but I think it must have been open for several hours at least.) Does this mean that the people who upvoted it didn't have their own stories to tell but wanted to hear others' stories? Perhaps for inspirational purposes??

  16.  

    I think it means our lurker population is large and a different demographic from either our answering population or our closing population.

  17.  

    It warms my heart when I hear things like "our closing population".

  18.  
    I considered posting an answer, but I am new to MO and trying to fit in. I've posted an answer or two to questions that have been closed and ended up feeling a sense of embarrassment. So I didn't want to take the emotional risk to look out of place. Also, I was at best ambivalent about posting after reading people's concerns on Meta. I'm interested in the human and psychological side of mathematics, but think that people who argued that the question was inappropriate for MO made some good points.
    • CommentAuthorgilkalai
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2010
     
    What I would find interesting (and of potential value) about how people were drawn to mathematics is issues of the form: the influence of parents, a single teacher and at what level, of books (and which), of special schools for math, of math camps, of competition and olympiads, and other less obvious matters. The question as posed was not formulated so well, and indeed it did not attract answers, so I have no problems with it being closed. But potentially some question of this kind can be useful. While problematic, a good question of this kind is also compatible with MO academic (not social) aims.
    • CommentAuthorgilkalai
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2010
     
    Here is how I would have formulated such a question:

    "How did you discover your interest in mathematics? It seems interesting and useful to identify how people discovered their talents and tendencies to mathematics, and what make them choose mathematics. (This can be useful in understanding what can be done to draw talented people to mathematics, and are there large communities and populations that we miss.) Consider contributing an answer if your story is interesting or unusual or if you are aware of recorded interesting or unusual stories about well-known mathematcians. Was the crucial factor a person (a parent, a teacher or a friend)? a book? An activity like math camps or olympiads? Was there a large ingredient of luck? "

    I think such a question is a professional MO question (and not a "social activity"). It is like questions about beamers, lecture notes, and education. I certainly agree that such questions are not the central aim for MO. ( I am not that happy with how the question in question was formulated.)
  21.  
    Can't MO have a second forum about the profession to take care of questions like this one?
    • CommentAuthorRyan Budney
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2010 edited
     
    @Bill, in my opinion the stackexchange Q/A format isn't appropriate for such a forum. Moreover, as it's not really in the mission statement of MO, so why would you ask MO to create such a forum? Any interested mathematician can create such a forum.
    • CommentAuthorgilkalai
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2010
     
    Dear Bill, roughly 5% of MO questions are of this nature, and some of these question are quite useful. It is very easy to filter them out for people who are uninterested, and I dont see any reason to change the policy that this is part of MO. This said, I see nothing urgent about this particular question, and I just proposed a way to reformulate it. It certainly can wait a few months or a couple of years.
  24.  

    @Bill: Andy Putman set a precedent a while back that, I think, gives the best possible procedure for this kind of situation: If you believe that you can rewrite the question to make it acceptable (possibly by shifting the focus), it is better to rewrite the question yourself than to vote to reopen the inferior one.

    • CommentAuthordeane.yang
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2010
     
    I like Gil's suggestion. I am against limiting the scope of MathOverflow too much. The traffic on MO of mathematicians at all different stages of their careers here is completely unique, and it would be nice to allow the discussions to go beyond what is currently the officially defined narrow focus of MathOverflow. As I've said elsewhere a few times by now, my definition of a valid MO question is one that produces good answers (whatever that means). If a non-technical question gets no acceptable answers within, say, a day or two, it should be closed.
    • CommentAuthorRyan Budney
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2010 edited
     
    @Deane, if you want to start a discussion on changing the nature of what's considered allowable on MO, that's fine but it should really be its own thread, and not appear here. This discussion is getting off topic.

    The point of creating a separate thread for such a discussion is to keep these kinds of deliberations as public and up-front as possible. Having the discussion in an unrelated thread gives the impression of a back-room deal between elites (the is a tad hyperbolic but I do it to get an impression across, as impressions really matter in these kinds of discussions).
    • CommentAuthorgilkalai
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2010
     
    Ryan, the question as I suggested it, is an ordinary MO (soft) question. It is like the question about using the blackboard, or about taking lecture notes in lectures where various people contribute their answers. This was always allowable in MO. Some people dont like such questions which is legitimate, but other people do like them which is also legitimate. It is easy for people who do not like them to simply filter them out.
  28.  
    "Always allowable" I would disagree with. Soft questions by their nature are borderline: many to most get closed, some don't. For a soft question to survive it usually needs to be written very well, have a large number of initial upvotes and have some very good answers early. I think one of the main mistakes soft question askers make is to not ask if their question is reasonable on meta beforehand, as they should know soft questions receive plenty of skepticism.
    • CommentAuthorgilkalai
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2010
     
    Ryan, you can have opinions on what should and should not be allowable but if you follow MO's history of soft questions you will easily see that your desription is incorrect. There was a steady flow of soft questions (roughly 3-5% of all questions) by most participants from the beginning. Soft questions never had any special requirement to survive in terms of initial upvotes. Of course, there was never a requirement to discuss such questions before they are asked and it was extremely rare that such questions were discussed before hand. Soft questions are also not borderline by their nature.
  30.  
    Gil, what data are you using? It sounds like you're only counting non-closed questions. Soft questions are borderline from the perspective of the FAQ and the discussions on meta, for example this is a very early discussion on meta concerning soft questions:

    http://tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/44/soft-questions-on-mathoverflow/
    • CommentAuthorgilkalai
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2010
     
    Ryan, There were many discussions and indeed there was some sentiment by some meta's participants against too many soft questions. On the other hand, there were strong opposite sentiments on MO itself based on upvotes and interest soft questions received. (Soft questions were also promoted by some of the more senior and experienced participants while indeed some enthusiastic brilliant kids are less kin on them.) There were meta discussions on the faq and instructions-for-asking-questions, where it was made clear that these instructions are not meant to exclude soft/big list questions and are often partially irrelevant to them. In any case, your recent opinion looks extreme not only in terms of MO's practices but also in terms of earlier opinions here on meta.

    Anyway, this is a rare event that a proposed reformulation of the question in dispute is offered here on meta just as you propose.
  32.  

    Having an illustrious OP also does wonders for the number of votes to close.

  33.  
    Gil, I'm fairly sure I don't represent an extreme on this as I have supported and also closed many soft questions (the closures are hard to quantify but look at my answer history to confirm the other statement), on the other hand your comments that soft questions are "always allowable" seem rather contrary to the FAQ, what actually happens and discussions here. So I find that comment confusing. An extreme position (the polar opposite of soft questions being always allowable) would be that soft questions should be forbidden. As I have not proposed that I think calling me extreme is largely rhetorical on your part. Whether or not a soft question is allowable really depends on the merits of the question.

    Soft questions are borderline and I don't think that's at all controversial, as the FAQ is quite clear about the types of questions that are encouraged.
    • CommentAuthorgilkalai
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2010
     
    Ryan, Indeed "allways allowable" was confusing. What I meant is that soft questions are like any other questions and should be judged on their merits.
  35.  

    It is like the question about using the blackboard,

    Assuming that you refer to this question, it's worth stating for the record that this question has been closed. Also, it was the asking-and-answering of that question that largely lead to my conversion from "Let's use MO for whatever nefarious purposes I can get away with" to "Let's focus on the math, the whole math, and nothing but the math."[1]. The answers that I got were deeply frustrating: I wanted to come back at almost every one and point out how ludicrous their answer was! But the MO software doesn't let me do that, not really. There's no real possibility of having a true discussion/debate that can lead to a reasoned argument that might actually change someone's mind. I would be very surprised if anyone, upon reading the question and those answers, has gone away and really thought about why they prefer one medium over another. I'd be even more surprised (I may have to resort to astonishment) if anyone had actually changed their behaviour (or at the least done an experimental change). If I'm right, what was the point of my question? Yes it's interesting, but ultimately is it going to change anything? No? Then there's no point in asking it.

    I'm pretty extreme (converts are always at the extreme end), yet even I would allow that there are good soft questions. None particularly spring to mind, but I'm sure that there are some. But as there are so many completely banal ones, a soft question really has to shine out to be acceptable. If the best that one can hope from a soft question is for people to say, "Oh, that's cute" then it has no reason to exist. Snuff it out.

    As for "good answers make good questions". No, No, No. If you've got a good answer to a rubbish question, ask the question that allows you to pose that answer. If there isn't one, then it isn't an answer, it's a statement. MO isn't for statements.

    Deane's comment:

    The traffic on MO of mathematicians at all different stages of their careers here is completely unique and it would be nice to allow the discussions to go beyond what is currently the officially defined narrow focus of MathOverflow.

    is very interesting. That's what I used to think. I don't any more. The key for me is what makes it have such traffic. I believe that if we allowed further discussion then the nature of the traffic would change considerably. I've now almost completely cut out reading maths blogs in favour of MO. If Deane's picture of MO came in, I would cut out MO in favour of something else where the maths is kept at such a high level - I'd probably only use the nForum and nLab in that case as those are the only ones I know of with a higher density of mathematics than MO (several orders of magnitude higher, in my very biased opinion). Another thing worth pointing out in Deane's comment is the word "discussion". MO is not for discussions. I like that. Keep things focussed on the maths! For one thing, not being a great place for discussions means that I can simply ignore it when people call me names or write incendiary comments on my posts (I know I ought to just ignore such things anyway, but hasn't anyone else noticed how it's much harder to ignore an inflammatory discussion here on meta than on MO?).

    To Bill:

    Can't MO have a second forum about the profession to take care of questions like this one?

    This has been suggested many times. Both Scott and I have said that we would be happy to set one up. However, neither of us (I think I'm not misrepresenting him) want to actually run such a place (as in moderate, we're happy to do the technical side). Indeed, I now have the software that runs the nForum in such a place that setting up such a forum would take about 30 seconds. So if anyone wants to get a team of moderators together to run it, vær så godt!

    [1] No, I haven't gone over to the other side. It didn't scan so well with the correct word used.

  36.  
    "vær så godt!"

    I wish *that* were one of the quotes on the recent MO quiz.
  37.  

    (Ah, but I don't think I've ever said it on MO itself so it wouldn't have been allowed, plus I think I've used Norwegian a bit more on the n-Stuff than here so your familiarity with me spouting vague Norwegian phrases is probably higher than most.)

    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2010 edited
     

    I'm pretty extreme (converts are always at the extreme end), yet even I would allow that there are good soft questions. None particularly spring to mind, but I'm sure that there are some. But as there are so many completely banal ones, a soft question really has to shine out to be acceptable. If the best that one can hope from a soft question is for people to say, "Oh, that's cute" then it has no reason to exist. Snuff it out.

    I thought that my question about Lang's famous exercise in Algebra was a good soft question, but then again, it also didn't lend itself to much discussion.

    [...]I'd probably only use the nForum and nLab in that case as those are the only ones I know of with a higher density of mathematics than MO (several orders of magnitude higher, in my very biased opinion).[...]

    Since you've broached the topic, I must take a moment to note that the nLab is surprisingly sparse regarding commutative algebra or algebraic geometry. Since MO has so many algebraic geometers, I think that mentioning this in a popular meta thread might convince some of them to write some of the basics of algebraic geometry up in the nLab...

    If you're ambivalent, pretend I convinced you.

  39.  

    What recent MO quiz???

  40.  

    Anton mentioned it here

  41.  

    comment retracted

  42.  

    Thanks, Zev -- must have missed that thread. Funny quiz.

1 to 42 of 42

  1.  
Back to Discussions Top of Page