tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users)

Scott Morrison comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18243)

2012-01-30T20:22:37-08:00

I think that makes an excellent conclusion to the thread, or at least as good as we'll get for now! I'll close the thread now, but as usual if anyone wants to continue discuss any of the (many!) points brought up here, please feel free to start a new thread.

bsteinberg comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18242)

2012-01-30T17:22:22-08:00

I'd like to thank many of you for your supportive comments. I am slightly reassured that a number of the upvotes were intended to support Lucy against having her question closed rather than to indicate that people agreed with her suggestion of sexism. Like mvsapir, I did google Lucy and algebraic geometry and have a fair idea who she is likely to be. But it is irrelevant because I never doubted that Lucy was a real person or a real mathematician. If she is reading this thread then I hope she has understood this. So I propose to end this part of the thread (I probably should have opened up a different thread on this issue).

I feel that MO is still a good place for questions outside you area. However there have been more and more "crank/hw" questions that really are not appropriate to this site that has made people more militant in closing of what could be good questions.

To avoid this one has to make it clear the question is well thought out. My favorite example of a question that "looked" so trivial and like homework that it nearly got closed but turned out to be a great question is fttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/83508/the-second-homotopy-group-of-a-simple-cw-complex/83584#83584
I feel this is one of my best contributions to MO because via a series of comments I helped clarify that the question is non-trivial and really about geometric group theory and retagged it as such so that the right people (Agol in this case) would see it and give the answer that people who know small cancellation theory well would all know but that somebody from outside would not.

Let me end by saying I have never had a non-CW question closed (and none with a vote-to-close since I obtained 3K rep) yet many of my questions were outside my area. Whenever I post a question from outside of group or semigroup theory (my area) I make that fact clear and I explain the motivation (which has sometimes been idle curiosity and sometimes from my research). For example, see http://mathoverflow.net/questions/83585/does-the-following-condition-imply-the-homotopy-type-of-a-wedge-of-spheres

My experience is that this usually avoids closure for anything that isn't truly undergrad level.

markvs comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18241)

2012-01-30T16:59:31-08:00

@Scott: I do not know the email address you have, but it may contain her last name, for example. Of course somebody else could use her email address but why would anybody do that? Anyway all I wrote is a guess which may be totally wrong. But if the moderators don't know who she is, then I cannot explain their behavior here. Clearly Ben Steinberg felt strongly that the offensive comments
which have no math content be deleted. So you (the moderators) value unknown Lucy (which as you think is possibly a fake) higher than Ben who is an active member of MO. This does not add up.

Scott Morrison comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18240)

2012-01-30T16:57:41-08:00

Also: I thoroughly agree with David Speyer. We need to reopen our doors to mathematicians asking questions in fields they are unfamiliar with.

Educating people about providing some background about their own background is part of this, but I think more importantly we just need to give more people more leeway.

Scott Morrison comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18239)

2012-01-30T16:55:47-08:00

Dear Ben Steinberg,

thanks for your reply; I appreciate that the timing was very unfortunate, and I appreciate how seeing that comment with 10 votes may have felt like an attack. I wasn't trying to accuse you of overreacting, just trying to work out how to deal with this and similar issues. Quoting Ben Webster (sorry Ben, this is from private email) "What sort of environment are we setting up if even asking the question if something was motivated by gender is beyond the pale?". (For context, Ben is criticizing my suggestion to migrate the comment thread over to meta, as we eventually did.) Questions about motivation by gender, or even outright accusations of sexism, can be answered --- especially in this case where you were able to give a clear (and to me, convincing) answer --- not just rejected. At the same time, I understand feeling that you're unjustly accused is very unpleasant. I hope some of the comments above from people who had upvoted Lucy's comment have reassured you somewhat.

best regards, Scott Morrison

Scott Morrison comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18238)

2012-01-30T16:47:15-08:00

@markvs; remember that email addresses are not verified by the software. I have been unable to contact 'Lucy', and personally have no idea who she is.

markvs comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18237)

2012-01-30T16:42:30-08:00

Actually if my google search is correct, Lucy may well be a woman math professor from a country where accusations of sexism are not as severe as in the US. So she probably did not expect the strong reaction to her comment. This also explains the strange behavior of our moderators (copying negative comments from MO to meta which never happened before as far as I remember). They of course know who Lucy is since they have her email address. Thus I have edited my comment above.

grp comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18236)

2012-01-30T16:02:58-08:00

It is noble to have experts answer questions in their area on MathOverflow that are asked by people in another area. A problem with this ideal is that the other area may be students who are required to answer the question themselves without such ready and able assistance.

Since many experts here are capable of modifying their response to accommodate the level of the poster's understanding, it behooves the poster to provide some cues as to what that level is, as well as what would be a good answer or at least comprehensible answer. For similar reasons, motivation and specificity in the post are also important.

I called for deletion/editing of the post partly because I believe that it led to some of the current dismay. More importantly, I want MathOverflow to provide a high quality of questions and answers. Perhaps we should call for a high quality of comments as well. If we the MathOverflow community don't insist on such a high quality, we and future readers (if there are any future readers) won't get it.

Gerhard Paseman, 2012.01.30

Daniel Moskovich comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18235)

2012-01-30T16:01:27-08:00

I agree that it's bad for MO to be a repository for flame wars and accusations. Maybe an admin could delete the confrontational comments to the post, delete this meta thread, and everyone involved can forget that this confrontation ever happened. That seems to me to be the optimal outcome.

IMHO, the question was indeed a good question that got treated unfortunately.

I also don't believe there's any lesson to be learnt from this- we are all human beings, and sometimes we misunderstand one another and have disagreements. Time to forget and move on.

Joel Reyes Noche comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18234)

2012-01-30T15:47:32-08:00

I want to express my support for bsteinberg, in particular, his initial comment
"Lucy, it might have been a good idea to preface the question with these remarks."
which I upvoted (if I'm not mistaken, I think I was the first to upvote it). I interpreted it as a very thoughtful comment made completely with the intent of helping the original poster. However, it seems (to me, at least) that the OP interpreted his suggestion as a hostile remark (at least initially), perhaps because it was given in the time that other people made remarks that were also interpreted as hostile.

I understand why many people would upvote Lucy's response to the comment. (In fact, I was among those who upvoted it. To bsteinberg, I upvoted it to show my support for Lucy; it was only later that I realized that the comment was insulting to you. For this, I apologize.)

I am, however, a little disappointed that only a few people (2, I think) upvoted your initial comment. This could be interpreted as implying that only a few people in the MO community support your efforts at being helpful. I hope this is not the case.

Tom Leinster comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18233)

2012-01-30T15:17:46-08:00

I agree completely with David:

I want MO to be a place that I can come ask basic questions in fields that I am just getting into

and with Yemon:

I would remind some people above that one of the original aims of MO (in my understanding) is that people in one area, faced with a question they can't yet solve but which they think should be easy for a specialist in another area, can put the question here.

I already feel more hesitation than I used to when asking questions outside my own field (which is basically all the questions I ever ask). These days, when I'm building up to asking, I imagine people grumping at me that this is standard fourth-semester graduate material (or whatever), and I should run along to stackexchange. I think MO is losing something, and it makes me sad.

Mariano comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18232)

2012-01-30T14:59:12-08:00

Back to the original subject: here is another... http://mathoverflow.net/questions/87085/maximal-cohen-macaulay-module

David Speyer comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18231)

2012-01-30T14:58:52-08:00

I don't have the energy to write out a longer response, but I also feel that MO has gotten a lot less friendly to grad students and people asking questions outside their fields than when I first found it.

I want MO to be a place that I can come ask basic questions in fields that I am just getting into (like http://mathoverflow.net/questions/57904/why-not-define-triangulated-categories-using-a-mapping-cone-functor ). For me personally, it is, because I have established enough credibility that I am very unlikely to get criticized. But do I think that I could recommend to a colleague or grad-student, with no MO experience, that they ask a question at this level? Right now, I don't, and I find that disappointing.

bsteinberg comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18230)

2012-01-30T14:40:00-08:00

Here is one comment from http://mathoverflow.net/questions/15632/atiyah-mac-donald-exercise-4-18-implication-ii-implies-i-closed. Of course this question is different than Lucy's because it does not actually contain the question, but only the reference to the book. But I think the first comment (which makes my point) would have been given even if the question was included and shows that Lucy is not the only one to get this treatment.

5

You'd probably benefit from this site if you detailed your approach so far and why you got stuck, and also defined the question. Although MathOverflow isn't for routine homework questions, some books have trickier problems that may have deeper ideas lurking. If you can motivate your question sufficiently well, you will get good answers :) – Jason Polak Feb 17 2010 at 21:28

Here is another example: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/54930/projective-but-not-free-exercise-from-adkin-weintraub-closed

2

You should probably ask this on math.stackexchange.com... – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Feb 9 at 21:14
3

This site is not for asking the solutions of exercises (read the FAQ). There are some exceptions, for example when you give more background, show your results and in particular when the exercise is actually a hard problem. – Martin Brandenburg Feb 9 at 21:33
1

I should add that Martin really means 'hard', as in gnarly problems out of Lang or similar. – David Roberts Feb 9 at 23:00
2

Exercises in elementary graduate texts are usually (though not in absolutely all cases) just exercises. It's best to spend time thinking it through rather than asking other people. – Jim Humphreys Feb 9 at 23:14

Hint: Möbius band. – Pete L. Clark Feb 10 at 5:07

I could give other examples (just put exercise into the search box on MO and you will find some that people liked and others not). There are further examples which I remember but the questions have already been closed and deleted.

Scott, if you look above at what I did say after I saw what she wrote it makes it clear it was not sexism:

Lucy, it is often customary (I've done it myself) when asking a question whose level is not research but it is outside your own area of expertise to say so. See my question on wedges of spheres. – JRLHD 10 hours ago
3

It is really not appropriate to accuse people of sexism based on what was intended as a helpful suggestion to not get your question closed. I've made this suggestion before. See the META discussion on the question on adjoining a unit to a ring. There I suggested that the OP, a man, should have explained he was a grad student learning the area. – JRLHD 9 hours ago
2

Lucy then tries to back out of her original comment by writing
@Benjamin Steinberg : I was interpreting your response as saying that I should reassure people in my question that I am a professor, which is rather insulting. –

But then her first question should have been, am I being held to a different standard because you didn't think I am a professor.

So in summary, my comment is of no different a nature than the ones I copied above; she responds that no such comments had ever before been made in ALL of MO and asks if I made my comment because she is a woman.

Now I feel I am on trial. It is for this reason that I will not participate further in MO at this time.

bsteinberg comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18229)

2012-01-30T14:39:49-08:00

@Scott,

Before answering let me first recall that I wrote my comment after Ryan had effectively answered the question. I therefore never returned to the question until Yemon opened this thread. At that point I saw the following comment with 10 upvotes:

"Looking at all the other posts on MO, I don't see other people declaring their credentials (including first-time posters who don't have contact info or a last name in their profile). Why should I be held to a different standard? Is it because I'm a woman? "

How can one not read "Why should I be held to a different standard? Is it because I'm a woman? " as anything short of an accusation of sexism? And upon seeing this upvoted by 10 people how can one avoid being hurt and therefore not be able to sit calmly and rationally and just write "No, I am not."

Also many people have claimed they are upvoting just the first part of her statement: "Looking at all the other posts on MO, I don't see other people declaring their credentials (including first-time posters who don't have contact info or a last name in their profile)."

This is also absurd. Very few people have looked at ALL MO posts. I can easily point to a number of posts where the person writing says they are any of the following: a newbie, a first-time poster, an amateur mathematician, a grad student, a high school student, or somebody working in area X asking a question about area Y.

The statement that she is being treated differently than others is also not true. Many questions that are asking for a solution to a problem in a book with no motivation given or discussion of what was attempted are closed. Are there any other examples where an anonymous person's first post asks for the solution to a problem from a book without any motivation or description of what he/she has already done and it ends up with over 10up votes and the final answer, which fills the sketch from comments, gets over 10 upvotes and is welcomed to MO with 12 upvotes?

I was going to give some examples of comments from other questions that make the same point as mine, but the questions I had in mind were closed and deleted. Nevertheless, here are examples of comments when people questioned a post about an exercise in a grad text book. I will put it in the next post because of the character limit.

To be continued...

Yemon Choi comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18228)

2012-01-30T13:52:48-08:00

Before the thread gets closed, can I thank everyone for their responses and clarifications - I was otherwise occupied yesterday so could not contribute. I had intended the question to be more about the practice of asking questions from said books, especially since I originally opened a MSE account solely for the purpose of asking how one solves one of the exercises in Isaacs's book on character theory, and since got the impression that the question could have been acceptable for MO.

Regarding the other discussions: I will also own up to being one of those 13 upvotes on the comment left by Lucy, and I am very sorry for any insult it has caused Ben. My hasty reading of the comment caused me to upvote, based on the 1st part ("other people have not been treated this way") for reasons similar to those mentioned by Akhil Matthew. Since I had no supposition that Ben was being sexist, as I recall full well the example he gives above where a male student was given the same advice, I did not really register that the second part of Lucy's comment could be interpreted as an accusation against him in particular. (It's unfortunate that one cannot rescind votes on comments.)

I also agree wholeheartedly with what Ben has said in his last comment, and hope that he will in time return to MO in some capacity.

Scott Morrison comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18227)

2012-01-30T13:32:37-08:00

I agree that this thread needs closing soon.

I want to interject one last thing, though. @bsteinberg, did you consider simply answering "No, it had nothing to do with you being a woman." in response to Lucy's question? I didn't interpret what she wrote as an accusation of sexism on your part. I think it's essential that when people feel that are being mistreated inappropriately, they are allowed to bring this up without starting a huge fight. I think both sides were too quick to anger, but directly clarifying your intent might well have helped. (Don't feel I'm trying to single you out; I tried and failed to contact Lucy via her account's provided email address.)

bsteinberg comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18223)

2012-01-30T05:13:04-08:00

Perhaps since Lucy has nothing to add it is best to close this thread. My last comment is that when it was first suggested that her question was not appropriate by Agol, she defended herself by saying that although the question turned out not to be too hard it was from outside her area. The point of my comment is that had she put her own argument in the preface of her question people would have been less likely to say the question was inappropriate. I don't think my tone was aggressive and I don't see why she chose (who never suggested to close the question) to single out. But I see now it was a misinterpretation and I hope Lucy does as well.

Sam Nead comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18222)

2012-01-30T01:49:36-08:00

@Anton - I think your answer brings out an important fact: the way you would reply to the mysterious stranger depends on _who_ they are and _what_ they want. When you ask the stranger these questions you are placing them in context and so, preparing to help them.

Look, I am not suggesting that all posters on MO must fill out a form "Who are you? Where are you from? What is your favourite colour? What is the ground speed of an unladen swallow?" before they can ask questions. Certainly, being helpful to strangers and non-strangers is a virtue. I just think that _how_ to be helpful is sometimes a puzzle!

grp comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18221)

2012-01-30T00:00:42-08:00

Andy: Yes, I am claiming it is not an explicit question. Among the hallmarks of an explicit question is something called a question mark "?", which I did not find in the post. I am NOT claiming that the post cannot be turned into an explicit question, nor am I claiming that one cannot extract an explicit question from the post on MathOverflow.

I'm sorry you find the entire post of mine unhelpful. I emphasize this: many of the undesired comments that followed were in large part due to miscommunication, and (as has been pointed out in other ways) they could have been prevented if some of the guidelines in the FAQ had been followed for this post of Lucy's. I believe the phrasing in the post contributed to the situation, and that a change as innocuous as using the phrase "Is there an embedding such that the map can be continuously extended to all of R^3?", combined with the other changes, would have made not only a better post, but resulted in a different and more pleasant outcome for all.

Lucy was bothered (in my view) by the idea that his/her question was not appropriate and that it might have to do with the handle that was used. Ben is bothered (in my view) by the idea that other people might think he was being sexist by the default presentation of the commentary; bothered enough that he is announcing his tentative departure from participation in this forum. I am bothered enough by the situation that I am responding to it here on meta and requesting editing or deletion of the post. (One of my goals behind the request is to point out that communication went awry before Lucy responded to Ben's comment.) You (in my view) are bothered by my posts on meta and do not appreciate the opinions I offer on what is wrong, or do not understand them and express your disapproval.

I offered suggestions in my post to relieve the bother of one of the people above. In a subsequent post, I mentioned a hope for something that could relieve the bother of two others. I have a suggestion for your botherment: find an alternative solution that satisfies you, Lucy, and Ben. If that solution involves improved communication, it may even relieve my bother as well.

If you wish to have your mystification relieved (or perhaps aggravated, I am unsure which), Will Jagy knows my email address; I invite you to an email discussion if you want me to expand on the first point regarding good communication.

Gerhard Paseman, 2012.01.30

Andy Putman comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18220)

2012-01-29T23:13:31-08:00

I don't have much to add to what has already been said -- I think it's a fine question which was treated in an unfortunate way. The OP responded in a more aggressive/hostile manner than I would like, but can see how the situation would irritate her.

I'm mostly posting because I want to respond to Gerhard's post. I have to admit that it completely mystifies me. Are you honestly claiming that the question is not a "clear and explicit question"?!?!?!? It's entirely precise, unambiguous, and stated with standard terminology. And it's a very natural question, so I can't see the point in adding additional motivation. In general, I think that your entire post is unhelpful, and also a bit rude and condescending.

Kevin Walker comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18219)

2012-01-29T22:22:42-08:00

Thank you, Anton, for injecting some level-headedness into this discussion. I particularly liked your "How would you respond if a colleague knocked on you door with such a question?" standard.

Like many of the other commenters in this thread, I am unhappy with the level of nit-picking and fussiness with which first time questioners are often confronted. I wish that those of you who frequently write such critiques would back off a notch or two. Even if you don't mean to be unfriendly or unhelpful, it often comes across that way. (Just to clarify, I'm not talking about 90-95% of the questions which get closed or criticized. I'm talking about the remaining 5-10% which are asked in good faith by research mathematicians or grad students.)

@bsteinberg: I can understand why you are upset, but I think Lucy's comment fell slightly short of accusing you of sexism. I upvoted Lucy's comment [at least I think I did; it's now been deleted so I can't confirm], but it was because I thought there had been too much nitpicking of her question, not because I supported her suggestion that sexism might be playing a role. I don't think you were being sexist.

@markvs: Perhaps your remark about "psychological problems" was some sort of well-intentioned joke, but I kind of doubt it. If, as I suspect, it was intended as a criticism of the OP, then I think it is a pretty obnoxious thing to write here, and also completely unsupported by anything written in the comment thread. You might want to consider retracting it. If I've misunderstood your intensions I apologize.

grp comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18218)

2012-01-29T22:20:50-08:00

You're welcome Ben. That the comments provided an answer and so are another indicator for the unsuitability of the post, that might provide for a third essay; I prefer to see the whole incident as a series of miscommunications,
some of which are preventable. I'll leave the third essay for someone else to write.

It is my hope that Lucy will see this, get the point about communications, and offer something in consolation. Lucy did get offended first however, and is (in my experience) unlikely to offer something in spite of the later explanations in the comments. It is also my hope that you will take a fresh look at this incident in a few days, note that your participation in the comment thread was reasonable, and that the points on MathOverflow comments are much like the points on "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"; may then your spirit be refreshed and your participation renewed.

Of course, you will do what you think is best for you anyway. May we (virtually or otherwise) meet again soon.

Gerhard "And Happy Trails To You" Paseman, 2012.01.29

bsteinberg comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18217)

2012-01-29T21:55:53-08:00

grp, thanks for your comments. I think another point that could be made in your essay is the question was answered by a hint for a solution in the comments (sufficient for the OP to solve the problem) rather than with an answer in the answer box. This most likely led people to think the question was not appropriate for MO which led to some votes to close and the first comments mentioning MSE. This prompted the OP to explain her background in coming to the question, which led to my suggestion that this might have been a preface for the question and the rest is history.

If I do return to MO I will avoid comments.

bsteinberg comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18216)

2012-01-29T21:45:38-08:00

Akhil, thank you for your comments. I agree that many posts from new users are often closed although I hope female names do not have anything to do with it. In fact the whole point of my comment was that if the poster makes clear that they are asking outside their area of research peope are less likely to vote to close. I did not vote to close the question.

Akhil Mathew comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18215)

2012-01-29T21:29:33-08:00

Dear bsteinberg,

Since I upvoted Lucy's comment, perhaps I owe you an explanation.

My perception is that Mathoverflow has lately become much less friendly to newcomers, including professional mathematicians and advanced graduate students. There have been several recent instances of questions that were clearly not undergraduate-level from new users who were advised to post on math.SE instead (sometimes with the incorrect suspicion that their questions were homework). Especially in this particular case, I am doubtful whether math.SE would have been a good fit, simply because of the current (small) group of expert mathematicians on the website (who lean mostly towards algebra and number theory), although Ryan Budney might have answered it; my impression of math.SE is that, unlike MO, it is not primarily academic mathematicians who answer most of the questions there (even the more advanced ones).

I am somewhat uncomfortable with this trend, and I know I would probably have left the community if my first post had occasioned such a controversy. Similarly, if I asked a senior mathematician that I did not know previously a question that came up in my reading, and was told the question was too elementary for them, I would probably be reluctant to contact them again. The effect would probably be heightened on a widely read professional board. As far as I understand, MO was (at least initially) supposed to cater to mathematicians in the way a large seminar might: that is, questions asked by an outsider that a specialist might find elementary were to be welcome. If this has changed, perhaps the FAQ should be updated to reflect this. However, I suspect such a change would make MO much less useful for many of its users: I know I at least have learned a lot from non-specialist questions, and the votes that some of them have gotten suggests others have as well.

Moreover, I think the trend tends to affect new users more; for instance, when I asked an elementary algebraic geometry question a year back, I received several helpful answers and comments. Had I been a new user then, I suspect the outcome would have been different. It seems a bit unfortunate to me that new users do not receive the same generosity or at least benefit of the doubt.

Finally, it was not my belief that you or your particular comments were sexist that prompted me to upvote Lucy's remark; rather, it was the (possibly incorrect) suspicion that users with female usernames may be, in general, more likely to attract such comments (in general).

Regards,

Akhil

N.B. As I am a student with fairly little experience in the mathematical community, who uses MO almost exclusively to ask rather than answer questions, my post should probably be assigned correspondingly little weight.

grp comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18214)

2012-01-29T21:11:07-08:00

This is the second of two substitutes for essays regarding the MathOverflow posting 86674 that initiated this thread. I submit that the post is inappropriate for MathOverflow, and that it should be edited or removed.

To get one issue out of the way, I am not concerned about the mathematical content of the post, or the fact that it came from a textbook, or that the poster's handle was Lucy (don't ask me why), or that the poster claimed that she was a professor. I think it is a fine post that could be presented in a variety of situations. In its present form, it is not suitable for MathOverflow.

First: In my view, it is not a clear and explicit question. It is implicitly asking for the resolution of a hypothetical situation: given a map, does the map extend, or does it not? This may seems a minor point to some, but it is the first point in a series of miscommunications. A good question on MathOverflow in my view will be very pointed and explicit: Does the map under consideration extend? Asking the question in an implicit way provides extra work for the reader to consider what explicit questions to answer, or how to frame the response to handle whatever ambiguities remain in the implicit presentation. The current form contributes to unclear communication, and it does not have to do so.

Second: In my view, there is insufficient motivation. It is an interesting problem for those interested in that area of mathematics, but there is no suggestion of why an answer is wanted or what is to be done with the answer. If there were motivating remarks, it would provide information for the reader who could help with the motivation as well as the explicit questions that might arise from the post. This is another point on which clarity which could be given is not provided.

Third: In my view, there is nothing to suggest that the poster has thought about how to solve the problem beyond guessing that the answer is that (there is no suitable embedding) the map does not extend to R^3. If there had been a description of something that was tried, there would have been information to the reader as to what level of
ability the poster had to handle the question, and how to form a response that is most helpful and suitable for the poster. Another opportunity for effective communication was missed here.

All of these points concern communication; MathOverflow is only effective as a tool if the posts on it are good examples of communication. This post could be made into a good example if the guidelines in the "How To Ask" page were followed.

Communication is a two way street; I have been guilty of leaving comments and answers which need improvement in clarity and communication. There are similar critiques that could be made about the commentary following the posting.
(It may be time for a "How to Answer" and "How to Comment" page.) However, the original post is what remains. I think the three points above played a major part in the resulting commentary, and that the result could have been avoided if even two of the three points were considered and used in the post.

To recap: it's not a bad post; its form is an example not to be encouraged on MathOverflow since (in my view) it falls short of good communication by not being sufficiently explicit, motivated, and informative regarding what level of answer would be appropriate. If requested, I will suggest a version of the post which is appropriate for MathOverflow.

Gerhard Paseman, 2012.01.29

grp comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18213)

2012-01-29T21:03:08-08:00

I have two essays that I would like to write, but I will instead restrict them to brief summaries. Both of them concern the posting 86674 of this thread. This first one is about flame wars.

It is easy to offend and get offended in this forum and in other forums. I chose not to participate in math.stackexchange because (among other reasons) I was offended by certain moderation behaviour. I will not plead strongly for Ben Steinberg to remain, but I prefer his participation on MathOverflow to the absence of his participation.

Reading over the comments, it is an unfriendly exchange but not as hostile or as blatant as can be found elsewhere. I hope that when tempers cool some retractions, apologies, and/or forgiveness can happen. While I am not as concerned about the continued presence of Lucy on this forum, I hope too that she/he will allow time for reflection and consider that the remarks on her question were not based in sexism. If such remarks are a concern for Lucy, I hope he/she will consider consulting the moderators about such remarks before issuing a reply that might promote misunderstanding.

A main reason I participate in MathOverflow is that I usually get respectful consideration. While I have not been completely respectful in return, I usually am, and I apologize and/or retract when I see that I am not respectful. I hope that we all continue to preserve respect on this forum in spite of our differences.

Gerhard Paseman, 2012.01.29

markvs comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18212)

2012-01-29T20:46:34-08:00

@Ben: I would not worry about it. NSF panelists are usually adequate people. They may "downvote" a good proposal, but the reasons are more substantial than some comment on MO.

bsteinberg comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18211)

2012-01-29T20:30:52-08:00

Mark, the question is not whether I take seriously comments from an anonymous poster. It is rather who does or will? And at least 13 upvoters took it seriously. My original comment, which somehow provoked her accusation, had only 1 upvote and so would be invisible to those not reading the whole thread.

I may meet somebody at an AMS conference who saw the 13 upvoted comment claiming I am sexist without seeing the rest of the thread and will make a judgement on me as being sexist. Or maybe an NSF panel reviewer will have seen her upvoted comment and nothing more and it could effect the decision...

For the record, here is an excerpt of what I wrote about the question of Richard Rast on adjoining a unit to a rng in the meta-thread. Nobody flamed me on this or accused me of sexism:

'I guess had he prefaced the question by saying "I am a grad student working in logic/category theory and I need to understand for my thesis whether the unit of the adjunction from non-unital rings to unital rings is monic, I have found a presentation for the left adjoint but I do not see why it is monic can you help me?" Even then I would prefer the statement that I looked at Jacobson, Kaplansky, Herstein,Cohn and Lam and could not find a construction (which is unlikely to be the case since I am sure at least one of those). In other words, it should be clear that the left adjoint of the forgetful functor from non-unital rings to rings should be well understood and that a little googling will find it.'

markvs comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18210)

2012-01-29T20:17:01-08:00

@Ben Steinberg: Why do you take seriously comments from some "Lucy" who may or may not be a woman math professor? (I once knew a cat with this name, but I don't think that cat would post on MO, although it was a pretty clever cat)

bsteinberg comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18209)

2012-01-29T19:59:41-08:00

@Ben, but is keeping comments that are offensive and can be hurtful to somebody in several ways standard practice? At least here in Meta the thread is in its proper order so that people can see it as it occurred. If you are unwilling to delete this inappropriate comment can you at least replace JRLHD by Benjamin Steinberg (as it read at the time) so people can reach their own conclusions and see I was misunderstood or conversely replace Benjamin Steinberg by JRLHD. If you do the latter that would be the second best solution to deletion.

bsteinberg comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18208)

2012-01-29T19:48:17-08:00

Mariano,

Thank you! This is why I seriously objected to the comments. If people take it seriously (and the upvotes must have) then it could have serious implications for my career. Perhaps if I had nipped things in the bud the number of upvotes woud not have gone so high. The problem is I had no idea she made this accusation until Yemon started this thread because I wasn't interested in the question any further because Ryan had already answered it in the comments.

Ben.

PS. JRLHD are JA Green's relations in Semigroup Theory. I have not deleted my account yet but am still considering it.

Ben Webster comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18207)

2012-01-29T19:37:21-08:00

Preserving comment threads on meta is standard practice for long comment threads that get off the topic of mathematics. We want to be able to refer to the record of what was said without leaving it up on the main site.

Mariano comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18206)

2012-01-29T19:31:03-08:00

I've read the whole list of comments twice and I find the implication of sexism extraordinary. Assuming there are no deleted comments I did not see, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever of sexism on the part of any of the participants.

I think MO should simply not tolerate such behavior. Today, in some contexts, such an accusation could have serious, concrete consequences. But that is really secondary: this is simply dishonest, hurtful behavior.

I would have expected the normal procedure in which comments get deleted by flagging to take place, but the comment instead got 13 upvotes! I cannot explain this. To make things worse, the accusation comes from an anonymous participant! As I have said repeatedly, I have absolutely no problem with anonymous participation, but I think there should be basic rules of behavior for people who choose to remain anonymous: this particular situation should be unacceptable.

PS: As of now, I cannot find Benjamin on the site using the obvious alternatives for user names nor the less obvious JRLHD.

bsteinberg comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18205)

2012-01-29T19:06:09-08:00

@Anton, a few issues. First, thanks for responding. I appreciate you taking time. Here are my arguments why the comment should be deleted:

1. The MO FAQ says to be civil. I cannot see how it is civil or reasonabe to accuse somebody of sexism based on what I had written. Agol suggested her question would be more appropriate for MSE. The OP then revealed she is a professor from another area of research. I suggested that it might have been a good idea to have prefaced the question with these remarks. How can any sexism be found here? My suggestion was intended to be helpful. It is hurtful to be charged as sexist when I have always in fact been a supporter of women in math (my wife is a mathematician and half my grad students were women.)

2. When there are 24 comments on a question only the most upvoted comments are seen. So a claim of sexism based on a complete misinterpretation of my comment is seen by all but my rebuttal by none. Given my real name is in the accusation this can cause me to be prejudged by my colleagues.

3. This is MO, not ratemyprofessor, where anonymous people can make unsubstantiated claims against people who give their real name (note: I removed my real name from MO; in your dump I am JRLHD). I included my real name based on FAQ's recommendation and I deeply regret it.

4. What record is MO trying to make? A mathematical record or a record of hurtful comments? I hope the former.

5. When Zeno_Mechanik called Yemon Choi a C*%# the moderators rightly deleted the offending remarks. So there is a precedent for removing offensive remarks. In fact I'd rather be called an expletive that nobody takes seriously than be given a false label that some might.

I believe that if MO encourages people to use their real name then it has a responsibility to protect them from comments that are insulting and could damage their mathematical careers with no basis.

EDIT: I see now the remark is no longer on the main site, but only in the dump here on META. I still find this a non-ideal solution but at least it can no longer be upvoted. I am not sure if I will return to MO but if I do I will not use my real name or provide my webpage. I see now the wisdom of those who remain anonymous.

Anton Geraschenko comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18203)

2012-01-29T18:25:49-08:00

I would remind some people above that one of the original aims of MO (in my understanding) is that people in one area, faced with a question they can't yet solve but which they think should be easy for a specialist in another area, can put the question here, see many of my own questions on finite group theory. To me it seems that Lucy's question fits in this category. Moreover, it is manifestly not a "I cannot solve this question please give solution kthxbye" post, which I still see on MO and am irked by – Yemon Choi yesterday
1

See also Noah Snyder's comment on, and solution to, this question on MSE math.stackexchange.com/questions/65634/… which went unanswered until Will Jagy charitably brought it to people's notice on meta.MO – Yemon Choi yesterday

@Lucy - I am happy with questions (at any level) that people come up with themselves. Asking for help with homework, or exercises from a standard text, is a different story. I'll restate my last comment: I in particular do not want MO to have a list of solutions to exercises from Thurston's book. This is because I enjoy thinking about them myself! – Sam Nead yesterday
5
@Sam : I see nothing in the FAQ or in discussions on meta (which I've lurked on for quite a while) which restricts where a question can come from. Indeed, let's quote the FAQ : "MathOverflow's primary goal is for users to ask and answer research level math questions, the sorts of questions you come across when you're...reading...graduate level books". Homework is not welcome, but I'm not a student and this is not homework (and if you want to question my credentials, do it outright and not via innuendo). If you don't want to know the answer to a question, no one is compelling you to read it. – Lucy 23 hours ago
5
@Sam Nead: you'd then have to carefully avoid reading any of Thurston's publications, or other books on the same subject on the grounds that they have a good chance to contain solutions to some of these exercises. I am okay with you having that attitude, but please don't force it upon MO. – darij grinberg 14 hours ago
1

@Lucy, darij - I have replied on the thread started in meta. – Sam Nead 11 hours ago
1

Lucy, it is often customary (I've done it myself) when asking a question whose level is not research but it is outside your own area of expertise to say so. See my question on wedges of spheres. – JRLHD 10 hours ago
3

It is really not appropriate to accuse people of sexism based on what was intended as a helpful suggestion to not get your question closed. I've made this suggestion before. See the META discussion on the question on adjoining a unit to a ring. There I suggested that the OP, a man, should have explained he was a grad student learning the area. – JRLHD 9 hours ago
2

@Benjamin Steinberg : I was interpreting your response as saying that I should reassure people in my question that I am a professor, which is rather insulting. – Lucy 9 hours ago
12
Further discussion should take place on Meta: meta.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1294/… Please upvote this comment so it appears "above the fold" – David White 9 hours ago
5

@Lucy: I think that the valid point in Benjamin's first comment was that you should give us some information why you want an exercise solved, lest we think that you are a student trying to get his homework done by others (which is the null hypothesis of many people here, regardless of your gender). This doesn't mean you should tell us whether you are a professor or a coal miner. You should just write a couple of lines about why you are that much interested in that exercise, and where your mathematical home is (algebraic geometry, in this case). Note that this is Benjamin's opinion, not ... – darij grinberg 9 hours ago
3

... mine - I just am trying to point out that there was a misunderstanding here. – darij grinberg 9 hours ago
2

As darij says, my point was intended to be that if you preface a question by saying I work in algebraic geometry and have found I need some further knowledge of 3-manifold so I started working through Thurston's book and got stuck on Exercise blah, any suggestions, that would have been helpful and few people would've objected to the question. When I wrote my comment, I meant preface by the remark it is not your area, but alas you interpreted it differently. I have no intention of insulting anybody. The point of MO is to be helpful. – JRLHD 7 hours ago

Anton Geraschenko comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18202)

2012-01-29T18:25:44-08:00

@bsteinberg: To say that you refuse to participate in a system which merely corrects an accusation of sexism (if it is ill-founded), rather than striking it from the record entirely, is over the top in my opinion. Sexism does exist, and it's not unreasonable to ask, "are you treating me this way because of my gender?" If the answer is "no," what is wrong with simply saying so? I will gladly update my position if somebody explains that I'm missing something important.

However, I do agree that much of that comment thread does not belong on the main site. I'm going to remove the comments which I think are too meta for the main site. The full current comment thread is pasted below.

---

If the torus embeds equivariantly, the corresponding torus bundle over S1 smoothly embeds in S4 and you can use various obstructions from 4-manifold theory to rule out embedding. The torus bundle over S1 is a Seifert fibred space. Do you know it's "name" in un-normalized Seifert notation? That would help. – Ryan Budney Jan 26 at 0:09

I'm not sure I follow. How do you get a torus bundle over S1 from an order 6 homeomorphism of S3 or ℝ3 that preserves a torus? – Lucy Jan 26 at 0:10
3

Oh, here's a far simpler strategy. If the torus embeds, it bounds a solid torus on one side. What automorphisms are their of order 6 for a solid torus? – Ryan Budney Jan 26 at 0:10
1

The torus bundle is (S1×S1)×[0,1] modulo the equivalence relation (p,0)∼(f(p),1) where f:S1×S1→S1×S1 is your order six automorphism. – Ryan Budney Jan 26 at 0:11

IMO the "simpler strategy" is the way to go! – Ryan Budney Jan 26 at 0:16

It seems pretty hard to classify order 6 homeomorphisms of a solid torus. Indeed, this seems even harder than classifying involutions of S3, which is a pretty wild problem (for example, you have the wild involution Bing constructed out of the solid Alexander horned sphere). – Lucy Jan 26 at 0:19
4

You don't need a classification result for this problem. Hint: An automorphism of a solid torus has to preserve the meridional class of the torus (up to sign) -- the non-trivial cycle that bounds a disc in the solid torus. – Ryan Budney Jan 26 at 0:21
2

Wow, I'm a little embarrassed that I did not see that. Thanks Ryan! – Lucy Jan 26 at 0:28
1

This question should probably be asked at Stackexchange. – Agol Jan 26 at 3:18
17
@Agol : In retrospect, the answer was not so hard (but not exactly undergraduate level). However, I'm a professor of mathematics, came upon this problem while reading a well-known graduate-level book outside my research area, and could not solve it. That sounds exactly like what the FAQ says MathOverflow is for, doesn't it? – Lucy Jan 26 at 3:40
2

Lucy, it might have been a good idea to preface the question with these remarks. – JRLHD Jan 26 at 19:27
13
@Benjamin Steinberg : Looking at all the other posts on MO, I don't see other people declaring their credentials (including first-time posters who don't have contact info or a last name in their profile). Why should I be held to a different standard? Is it because I'm a woman? – Lucy 2 days ago

What is the smallest n such that you can embed it in ℝn with that symmetry? 4? – Will Sawin yesterday
2

@Lucy - I think this question is better suited for stackexchange. I agree that Thurston's book is graduate level or perhaps even harder. So if you are reading it, and have questions like "Why is this hypothesis necessary? Why is the definition phrased that way? Can this problem be generalized? Who is working in this area?"; those are all fine. But asking for solutions to the exercises is a very different thing. In particular, I would like to avoid having a list of answers to the exercises in Thurston's book here at MO. – Sam Nead yesterday
4

@Sam Nead : So, young man, we agree that Thurston's book is at the advanced graduate level. In my own research area (algebraic geometry), I see plenty of questions on MO at this level. And many of them could be given as homework in an advanced graduate level course, at least if they were phrased in a more natural way. Why should the source of a precise question at the appropriate level be relevant? Certainly the FAQ doesn't seem to claim this. – Lucy yesterday
11

Anton Geraschenko comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18201)

2012-01-29T18:08:29-08:00

I could have gone to the board and bleated out the eigenvalue answer, but then neither of us would have learned much.

I disagree, but if you feel doing that is a waste of time, don't do it. To answer your counterhypothetical, if I see it as my job to teach them the material, I suppose I would try to have a leading conversation like what you describe. But I treat fellow MOers as colleagues, not as students. If a fellow postdoc or a professor in another field came to my office and asked me such a question, I would be horrified at the thought of coyly withholding the answer to the precise question they had asked me, saying something like, "if I tell you, neither of us will learn anything."

Storkle comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18200)

2012-01-29T17:34:54-08:00

Sam,

I haven't the slightest idea who you are, and I assume that you are much less grating in person than online. Pseudonymity has its advantages! An informal poll of colleagues suggests that a large plurality of mathematicians believe that online discussion of textbook problems, especially outside one's area, can be a fun&rewarding way to spend an afternoon; your eagerness to impose a gag order on MO to avoid spoiling a few exercises seems pretty selfish to us. The OP was direct and honest: she had tried hard to solve the problem and came to MO asking for help after that failed. You're interfering with the proper functioning of the site.

bsteinberg comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18197)

2012-01-29T17:16:04-08:00

@Anton, I find the question fine although some motivation for the question and discussion of what the OP tried (as per FAQ) would have been nice. But I think the OP calling Sam "young man" and accusing me of sexism is out of line. There are 13 upvotes on her sexism comment which will be read by anybody who sees this thread. I flagged the comment as offensive several hours ago, which was as soon as I saw it (I hadn't looked at this question since leaving my first comment until this thread opened). Although I have enjoyed MO for the past 6 months I cannot participate any longer in a site that lets unsubstantiated calumny stand. So with great sadness I plan to stop participating in MO while this comment stands.

Bill Johnson comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18195)

2012-01-29T15:52:25-08:00

I'll backtrack slightly: some questions from textbooks do make good MO questions; such as this one

But IMO MO should not include a repository of answers to questions from textbooks.

Sam Nead comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18190)

2012-01-29T14:05:50-08:00

Anton - Your hypothetical "If Lucy had asked the same question, leaving out the bit..." happened, to me. I was sitting quietly about three months ago when somebody asked me this exact question, without any background. I replied "So you are reading Thurston's book eh? Awesome! What have you tried?" The questioner (and third person) with my help then proceeded to figure out a solution that is very different from the one I already knew.

I could have gone to the board and bleated out the eigenvalue answer, but then neither of us would have learned much.

So let's turn the question around. Suppose that a stranger comes to your office hours, asks if you've got a minute, and then opens a book to page five and reads out a question to which you happen to know the answer. What do you do?

darij - I suppose that you are correct that there is no real danger. It still makes me uncomfortable.

Storkle - Because I spend more time at MO than at Stackexchange. I'm confused by your "this type of question" remark. This question is a copy of a question in an important text. How does repeating it here fulfill either of the properties you list? Changing the question (eg to the order eight periodic map on the genus two surface) or exploring the definitions, or asking "where is the mistake in my logic": these are much more reasonable.

Anton Geraschenko comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18186)

2012-01-29T10:35:13-08:00

@Sam: It seems to me that your objection to the question is that it tells you where it is coming from. If Lucy had asked the same question, leaving out the bit about where the question came from, would you still object? Both answers seem difficult to defend. Either way, I guess the argument would have to boil down to, "people (either including or excluding Lucy) should work some things out for themselves."

First of all, there is nothing you can do to keep people from cheating. Answers to answered questions are increasingly more available. Secondly, this is a good thing. Sure, it builds your character to work out many things in mathematics, but you don't refrain from reading books and papers which just give you the answers. Moreover, there is no amount of hand-holding which will make mathematics easy. Understanding the answers is more often than not enough of an exercise in itself. And even if it weren't, it's not like we're in danger of running out of new mathematics.

The "people should work things out for themselves" objection to MO (or to certain questions) simply doesn't withstand scrutiny.

My own opinion is that discouraging this type of question is bad for MO. It needs a certain number of questions at this level to continue being entertaining for people who like answering grad level questions in their own area---everybody likes a little diversion now and then. And on the other hand, it's good if it continues being a place where mathematicians can come for help outside their own area.

Yes! Aside from making it easier to get your little lemmas outside of your area out of the way, wonderful mathematics gets done when the asker and answerer discover they have complementary skill sets which together can tackle some new problem.

Andres Caicedo comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18185)

2012-01-29T09:08:52-08:00

My own take is that it depends very much on the question. In set theory, we accept questions from books, within reason, but sometimes I do find the questions more basic than I would like; I do not object to it every time it happens, as set theory is certainly not as common or well-represented in MO as other topics. Regardless of the field, sometimes printed versions of exercises have typos, and what should have been routine becomes significantly more challenging, or even leads into interesting directions. In a topics course, I may assign as homework material that is actually published results, or that is claimed as "personal communication" with no printed proof anywhere. So to say that something comes as an exercise from a book does not necessarily mean much. It does not seem ideal to implement an a priori all encompassing policy.

Storkle comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18184)

2012-01-29T08:39:23-08:00

Sam,

Your first comment on the thread linked by Yemon begins "I think this question is better suited for stackexchange." Why is it that you prefer lists of solutions to the problems in Thurston's book to appear on mathSE?

My own opinion is that discouraging this type of question is bad for MO. It needs a certain number of questions at this level to continue being entertaining for people who like answering grad level questions in their own area---everybody likes a little diversion now and then. And on the other hand, it's good if it continues being a place where mathematicians can come for help outside their own area. It would be a shame if MathSE took over that role.

darijgrinberg comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18183)

2012-01-29T08:36:40-08:00

Sam: the "oh-so-convenient pile of solutions" won't be reality anyway, unless somebody actively tries to create such a pile. Chances are that, already now, the solution to every single problem in that book is out in the wild, semi-immortalized somewhere on the arXiv, gen.lib.rus.ec, MathOverflow or another place online (in the case of Thurston's book, probably many things are corollaries of results proven in standard different geometry treatises), but as long as nobody collects these solutions into that "convenient pile", corrects the mistakes, collects all the non-canonical results from outside the book that they use, etc. etf., there will be substantial effort required to use these as a free solution manual.

Reality check: There have been various projects to collect solutions to Hartshorne's Algebraic Geometry online. Neither of them is anywhere like complete; probably the best places to get solutions for Hartshorne problems are still EGA and Liu's book, neither of which has been created with this intention. Most of these internet projects only cover the problems their author has been assigned for homework in his course (and these problems often are known results anyway). Many solutions are written in a terse enough style that one is left wondering whether they are solutions at all. I think the largest collection of Hartshorne solutions on the internet has so many completely wrong solutions that I am surprised anybody could have a use for it at all.

bsteinberg comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18182)

2012-01-29T08:34:14-08:00

I found the discussion in the comments for this question a bit offensive. For instance, I got accused of being sexist for stating what I thought had been standard MO ettiquette when asking a question that is not research level but outside your area, namely to make that clear (this has been discussed on Meta). There are many posts where the poster prefaces things that way (some by me) and MO says posts should be motivated. Andrew Stacey pointed out as a good example my question on the homotopy type of a wedge of spheres which came up from combinatorics but was easy for any reasonable topologist. What bothers me is that this comment got 10 upvotes. I made the same remark here in META for the question on adjoining a unit to a rng where the poster was a man.

In fact a number of people seem to get upset if you comment on how a question could be better formulated or improved and become hostile. So much so I will stop doing so.

deane.yang comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18181)

2012-01-29T08:09:54-08:00

Asaf, you're right, so I should explain further. It seems to me that when someone asks a question, they should show at least some evidence that *they* did try to answer the question themselves. It's good enough for me, if you explain what you think the most obvious argument is and why you can't make it work. At that point, even if it *is* an easy argument, I'm more sympathetic to answering it or at least offering a hint. All I want to know is that the person asking the question has made at least some effort to answering the question.

Sam Nead comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18180)

2012-01-29T07:21:17-08:00

@Yemon - I have no problem with questions arising from graduate level texts. As examples of such questions: "Why is the definition written this way? What is another example of this behaviour? What are other references? Who is working in this area?"

However asking for solutions to exercises is a different matter. These are not "reader created" questions. They are explicitly "author created." They are created to assist the reader in thinking through the material. The only useful response to a request for a solution to an exercise is "What have you tried? What definitions in the question are giving you trouble? Which examples have you considered?" and so on. As such, the original question and these kinds of replies belong more on StackExchange.

Summary: I do not want, on MO, lists of solutions to questions explicitly labelled as exercises. I, in particular, would rather not see Thurston's book so treated.

Responses to comments (directed at me) from the original question.

Lucy - I am uncomfortable being addressed as "young man". Also, I don't enjoy having my words characterised as "innuendo". Finally, there is your sentence "If you don't want to know the answer to a question, no one is compelling you to read it." This appears to be an invitation to leave MO, or at least certain parts of it. I would rather not. Instead, I suggest that we discuss (and hopefully agree upon) the community standard for these kinds of questions. I've set out my position above.

darij - I believe that there is a big difference between (1) an oh-so-convenient pile of solutions to exercises on the interwebs and (2) arriving at a solution through some combination of pure thought, discussions with other people, and digging through the library. This is one reason for the position I've laid out above.

Bill Johnson comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18178)

2012-01-29T06:56:49-08:00

I thought the math level of the question was fine, but I agree with Sam Nead that solutions to problems in books should not be posted on MO.

Asaf Karagila comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18177)

2012-01-29T03:18:44-08:00

There is no deterministic way of knowing a priori to asking that the answer is "a straightforward argument".

deane.yang comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18176)

2012-01-29T02:34:30-08:00

I find this issue quite troublesome. My personal standard has been if the question can be answered using only basic definitions and a straightforward argument or calculation (no trick, no new idea to introduce) and is something anyone learning the subject (student or not) should try to do themselves, then I just say that. But I'm not sure that there is a good consistent definition of "straightforward".

This particular question passes my personal test, but that is probably because I'm not a topologist and, although I like reading Thurston, I don't find anything he says or poses as a "homework problem" to be straightforward.

Yemon Choi comments on "Questions from graduate-level books, asked by new users" (18175)

2012-01-29T00:08:48-08:00

It seems from the comment discussion at this question that perhaps we need to revisit the issue of questions from graduate-level texts. I must confess to finding Sam Nead's position overly doctrinaire, but perhaps I am out of step with the community consensus.

Thoughts?