I am very concerned by this question, and also by the responses we are seeing. A year or so ago, we discussed whether or not MO should be used to discuss the merits of recent preprints here and also here. Various views were expressed, but I think there was general agreement that MO is not an appropriate venue to discuss recent preprints in detail and that authors should be treated with respect.
Unfortunately, the responses to 104695 violate both these principles; in particular, the author has been ridiculed. I am very concerned about what this means for the culture of MO.
]]>]]>
- Please ask a different question; it's impolite and pointless to make a deep edit after accepting an answer. François G. Dorais♦ 1d ago
- @FrançoisG.Dorais: I unaccepted the answer. Please return the question to the previous form. Thanks. Saint Georg 1d ago François G. Dorais♦ 10h ago Saint Georg
- 1 Saint Georg, that is a very impolite thing to do! Please reaccept Joel's answer! François G. Dorais♦ 1d ago
]]>
- 8 The definition, and therefore the question, makes no sense. ZF can prove only formulas, and sets of reals are not formulas. You could define that a formula $\phi(x)$ is a "definition of a choice-free well-orderable set" if ZF proves "there is a well ordering on ${x \in \mathbb{R} : \phi(x)}$", but this will not help, as the definition of $A$ and $B$ then still make no sense. In the metatheory, there are only countably many formulas, so the set of all definitions of c.f.w.o.s. is trivially countable, whereas from within the theory, you cannot express the property of being definable by ... Emil Jeřábek 1d ago
- 1 ... a first-order formula, hence the informal collection of sets defined by a formula that is c.f.w.o. is not a set, and as such you cannot speak about its cardinality. Even the collection of all definable sets in a model is not preserved by elementary equivalence, and it models where it happens to be an internal set after all, it may well be anything from countable to the full powerset of the reals. Emil Jeřábek 1d ago
- 1 And of course, one set in a model can be definable by two different formulas, one of which may be c.f.w.o., and the other one not. In fact, every definable set has a definition that is not c.f.w.o. Emil Jeřábek 1d ago
- What do you mean "find"? I'm getting confused by your edit, because sets are semantical objects for set theory. This means that in a given universe some sets of reals will be well-orderable. You don't use the axiom of choice to "find" these well-orders, they exist. Is you are talking about definable subsets that's a whole other thing. I think that the right question, and indeed this is what I interpreted from the question originally, is asking for the set $A={X \subseteq \mathbb{R} | X \text{\ can be well-ordered}}$ and asking what can we prove about the cardinality of $A$ in ZF, [cont.] Asaf Karagila 1d ago
- @EmilJeřábek: How can one define the "clear" notion of a choice free well-orderable set? Is Asaf's answer meaningless too? If not, is it answer of a question different from my question? If yes, what is that question? Saint Georg 1d ago
- 1 My answer, was, it seems (and I agree with Emil) to a slightly different question. About what is provably true about ${X \subseteq \mathbb{R} | X \text{\ can be w.o.}}$, and about its complement. Note, to your edit, that sets are the semantical objects in set theory. If $A$ is a set of reals in a model $M$ either it can or cannot be well-ordered, and the axiom of choice says nothing about it. If we want to ask whether or not every definable (with real parameters?) set of real numbers can be well-ordered, that's another question (whose answer is similar to mine), which admits consistency results. Asaf Karagila 1d ago
- 12 Saint Georg: The appropriate way to react to Emil's criticism is to take some time to digest it, not trying to argue that your question makes sense. Over the past two days or so, you have asked 5 questions and at least 3 had deep flaws demonstrating lack of research. Perhaps you should ask questions on Math.StackExchange until you reach the point that your questions meet the standards expected by the MathOverflow community. François G. Dorais♦ 1d ago 9h ago
- @FrançoisG.Dorais: Was my comment "trying to argue that my question makes sense"? I simply asked about the probable problem because in the first view it seems that Asaf had no problem to understand my question and I had no problem to understand his answer. I asked them (Asaf & Emil) to illustrate the problem more and I received useful explanations. Saint Georg 1d ago
To start things off, I present:
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/127190/is-there-an-observer-dependent-mathematics-closed
]]>http://dumps.mathoverflow.net/, or
http://ifile.it/soyqa09/MOdump20100303.zip
In my opinion to have a homework-tag on MO is rather potentially harmful as it is likely to give the wrong impression that homwork-questions are on-topic (why else should such a tag exist, could be an IMO reasonable line of reasoning of a new user).
Indeed, that is why I suggested the deletion of a then existant tag of the same name some time ago (which happened). It now was recretated, by a very experienced user. So I did not just want to remove it but rather thought to start this thread.
Added: for reference this is what I said on the respective sticky thread Dec 4th 2011 (towards top of page 5) [To avoid a misconception, the user using it then and now are different.]
]]>I just noticed that there is a (recent?) 'homework' tag and somebody (not OPs) tagging things with this. For several reasons I think having this tag is a bad idea. One is that it can suggest homework is on-topic.
The current posting is from a completely new account, which I however suspect to be not independent, without much evidence beyond doubting two independent mentions of that vixra-preprint.
Yet so far I stayed somewhat alone in my harshness; which suggests it is perceived as overly harsh or the thing was just not yet generally seen. In either case, I thought asking here was a good idea.
]]>I am wondering if anyone knows how to use the ams mathematics calender(http://www.ams.org/meetings/calendar/mathcal) as an RSS feed? I wanted to ask on MO, but I don't really think it is an appropriate question, so I thought I could put it here instead.
Ideally, any time this calender updates, I would get the update as an RSS story. If anyone knows how to pull something like this off, I would be very appreciative.
Thanks! -Bryan
]]>http://dev.mathoverflow.stackexchange.com/q/103749/5094
? [Note: this question is in the MO 2.0 sandbox--not the actual site, where I would not have the nerve to ask it.]
]]>The most relevant categories appear to be the following:
The categories cs.AI, cs.CL, cs.CE, cs.PL could be relevant to mathematics, but we don't seem to have a significant number of MO questions in these categories.
[...]
]]>As the days passed , the up-votes increased and now the count turned to be 8. I then started worrying that my account has been hacked or there is some spam message. I generally receive such sort of spam messages in yahoo, where some unknown person claims that he knows me and then speaks as if he has seen me. Later on he posts some advertisement related to his company. Moreover evidently quid doesn't has kept any details on his member page.
I hope "quid" is not of that sort. Can I take it for granted. Can I hope for a moderator to step-in into this issue and settle it ?.
Thank you. I hope my account is safe.
]]>@Pete Wow... Pete you have pushed me into a "limbo"... I dont want to give a long reply... But it seems i have no other choice...
I dont want to discuss any personal thing here, but I would like you to know, that I work from home, and am not a professional math. student... But I am a computer science grad and we have had several math papers as subjects of study... I am about to take math, but I am doubtful, because academics dont let you think out of the box... which is why I have delayed taking the course... I want to explore math but I don't believe in mathematical rigor when I am exploring (Chaitin's fan you may say)...
Regarding your comments:
(i) I am new to MO... as such I read the faqs, and accepted wherever I think the answer's correct... Is there something else I need to do (I mean click tick marks, etc.) ?
(ii) I have done lots of mistakes, and I acknowledge that and have acknowledged that before also... thats is why I have 7 versions of a paper to arxiv... I will even withdraw my paper if someone points out where I am wrong... But when the academic community grips you like this and tells me to master something and pointing out that I need to give attention, I feel a bit intimidated... Because thats exactly what I want to do...
All I want to know is what is true... and when discussions turn into a flame game, I really hate that... because that delays knowledge exchange...
]]>They don't appear in the default 2-day queue, you have to click on the 30-day queue to see them.
]]>I woke up this morning to find Springer changing their model for their Encyclopedia of Mathematics and in the process breaking all existing links to eom.springer.com
.
I know quite a few of us (semi-)regularly cite the Springer EOM for definitions and what-nots in posts and comments (yours truly included). This move most likely has caused some severe breakage to the readability of some posts. (And with comments not editable....)
The problem is that the original Springer EOM pages had different naming scheme at the level of the URL, so I suspect it is not quite possible for Anton to just do a glob on the database and replace the links to their new names (it would probably require a bit of hacking up a perl script and a copy of the complete index of the original EOM).
So in the event that Springer does not realise what they've done and repaired the links, we as a community will probably need to keep an eye out for old, broken, EOM links and replace them with new ones.
]]>MO will be moving to a new server tomorrow afternoon. This should incur no more than 10-20 minutes of downtime.
edit: Original post above, but it actually looks like the move to new servers will be delayed.
]]>Its true that I was completely ignorant at the beginning, but now I have followed everyone's advice here, and kept on reading some basic things instead of directly going into the higher level concepts and I was sincere in doing that ( and also successful ) . I have been learning Algebraic-Number-Theory, and Algebraic-Geometry and a bit of topology and other things. But I am getting some doubts that are really good. But the main point is that, Now-a-days I am able to understand the jargons one use in mathematics, but can't grasp the concept completely without others intervention ( in the form of providing references ) . Its true that everyone once or the other time might had an intervention ( help ) from some professor or teacher in their life. But as I don't have such facility. That's why I am depending upon these MO and Math.SE , but that made everyone take advantage over me and suppress me. Even though I have completely improved my formatting skills, and level of asking questions, every-body is deliberately down-voting my questions without any reasons. And I have also learnt the basic things and some graduate things, and I am able to post some questions in graduate level . So what is the problem with me now ? Is it true that major people try to suppress others ? , but according to my situation, I always observe an undiminished truth in that statement.
So I demand an explanation from moderators, who have banned me from entering MO. I have all sorts of answers with me, as I have followed the advises sincerely . I have read some basic things concretely and also some graduate texts before putting forward such questions. So what is the problem with me ? .
P.S : And recently I have asked a question at Math.SE which is here . After waiting for a long time, and after offering some bounty, I got an answer. So what the thing I wanted to tell is that, the proportion of mathematicians present at Math.SE are less than the ones present here. Even if I receive some answer , it would be very short ( as great mathematicians , wont find time in writing up entire detailed answer , but there are some exceptional cases present, like Prof.Emerton took much time in answering questions in a very long and detailed manner, which can be seen here . But I am very unfortunate that, now-a-days he has become very busy in his work, that he is not active at these web-sites. And its not fair on my part to just ask for a complete explanation, as he already have remarked that one should try for the maximum extent before writing up questions here. And I have merely done the same, I have read the book he suggested ( Arithmetic of Elliptic curves by Silverman ) . But I was very happy to find a person like that and I am thankful to him.
I always repeat that world always helps the persons after proving themselves in giving prizes and fellowships etc.. But no one in this world helps at the time of building one's career, the true recognition is to help the one's at the time of building their career, rather than honoring them after they became successful. As there wont be any meaning for that honor, as a lighted candle never needs a match stick. ( don't counter-argue that what is the situation if the flame turns-off, I just said for comparison ) .
Sometimes I feel like ending my life, after seeing the situation in this world, but later I learnt that its nature's law that one need to strive hard before proving something, and always world enjoys that. Anyway I dedicate my thanks to all those ( Prof.Emerton, Prof.Pete.L.Clark.. ) who offered an unparalleled service in helping thousands of students through their pure service, though I believe, consists merely of “tanquam folium a vento rapitur et quasi scintilla in arundinete” (leaves caught by the wind, sparks in the brush wood) with great respect to all those who have inspired me.
Thank you.
]]>There has recently been a suggestion to delete (erase from the site; make invisible and inaccessible) the "colorful language" thread. I think this is a very bad idea. I propose that MO have a policy of not deleting any questions which have had significant answers or comments.
]]>May we consider the practice of not only closing questions (I have in mind those which are not of the contentious type...) but also actually delete them?
]]>Of course, someone can simply open a new thread on an old topic, but that's a little more effort so makes it unlikely that a "random passerby" will do so. Moreover, if someone does want to post something legitimate on an old thread, it would be better to start a new thread, summarising some key points from the old one, and thus we don't have to re-read the whole of the old thread to get an idea of what the new posting is about.
However, there may be objections that I've overlooked and so if anyone spots them, best to record them here so that if Scott likes the idea, he has all the information necessary.
(I make no presumption that Scott will like this idea, I haven't contacted him about it.)
]]>In case you haven't followed the nymwars surrounding Google+ and its clear name policy, one byproduct is a site called my.nameis.me with testimonials for online anonymity.
On that site there's a very good post by Grant Olney Passmore about MO as a good example.
]]>Please see mathoverflow.net/howtoask – David Roberts Jul 6 at 4:35
David: Is this question inappropriate? Is asking for references more answerable? – Taylor Dupuy Jul 6 at 6:29
2
No, I meant phrasing the question(s) with a little more padding/explanation/motivation. The content of the question is fine, and indeed I think it might receive more attention if not written just as a block of text. – David Roberts Jul 6 at 7:27
1
Taylor, when you say "where can I find a proof for nonabelian compact groups", does that mean you know the result is true for nonabelian compact groups? or is that part of your question? – Yemon Choi Jul 6 at 16:16
Yemon: The validity is part of my question: Is it true that for every f in Lp(G) that fˆ in Lp(Gˆ). I can't find a reference but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. – Taylor Dupuy Jul 7 at 9:35
I removed this part from the post: In interested in the following questions: - Does there exists some type of Calderon-Zymund decomposition for f in L^1(G) when G is a locally compact topological group? - What are some references for Calderon-Zygmund theory over locally compact topological groups? – Taylor Dupuy Jul 7 at 9:47 1
@Dupuy: Could you please clarify what you mean by Fourier transform of a function on a non-abelian group (for example, the symmetric group Sn)? Thanks! – SGP Jul 7 at 11:52
3
Taylor, you should seriously edit your question : Fourier transform is not continuous from Lp(Rn) to itself if p≠2. Instead, it sends Lp to Lq if p∈[1,2] (as usual 1/p+1/q=1) by Hausdorff-Young inequality, and Lp outside L1loc if p>2. Also, you should precise what you mean by Calderon-Zygmund decomposition. – BS Jul 7 at 12:13
1
Taylor, do you mean that the partial sum operator, or some associated maximal operator, is bounded from Lp to itself? If so, that is not, repeat NOT, what you wrote... – Yemon Choi Jul 7 at 16:11
Willie: Uh, thanks for the insightful comment, derp. SGP: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… BS: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… you would need a generalization of Cubes in the general setting. Boundedness of the Fourier Transform comes from boundedness of the Hilbert Transform + properties of translating the fourier transform, and the proof I know uses a Calderon-Zygmund decomposition. Yemon: I like your bold. Lp Boundedness of the operator Cf(x)=supR>0|∫R−Re−2πixξf(x)dx| implies bddness of Fouri – Taylor Dupuy Jul 8 at 6:42
I vote against closing. We should let the OP an opportunity to edit and clarify his question. – Gil Kalai Jul 8 at 8:55
Yemon and BS: That was a really silly and embarrasing mistake of me and I made an edit once I made the mistake that was still wrong. Forgive me for not seeing this right away. – Taylor Dupuy Jul 8 at 13:59
1
Gil and Other: The question should have been about a Carleson operator (which I messed up the statement of) and about whether it held for other groups (I'm in the process of learning harmonic analysis and wanted to know the statement in general). Is the "Carleson Operator" Strong (p,p) for locally compact abelian groups and compact nonabelian groups. I know the answer to my question is no now because of what Fefferman proved jstor.org/pss/1970864. I also know now that a statement of what a "Carleson operator" is for general groups isn't easy to straight forward. – Taylor Dupuy Jul 8 at 14:04
What should I do with this one? Should I rephrase the question in a new post? I'm not exactly sure what your guys policy is since I botched this up pretty badly. – Taylor Dupuy Jul 8 at 14:06 1
I think underneath there is a good question in there. I used the answer page instead of the comment spot because I don't have enough space in the comments to clearly write down the argument. What you should do now, is, I think, edit your question to the correct form (the one about Carleson operators), because when you started asking the question you didn't know the result. Then you can post an answer yourself stating that you've actually found out about Fefferman's paper on ball multiplier, after you've formulated the question. – Willie Wong Jul 8 at 14:53
]]>In the context of some discussions we are having at my university, it has become evident that some statistical information regarding publishing practices in mathematics would be necessary to proceed---you know, facts. In particular, I would be immensely happy to know if there are measurable and measured differences in the number of papers published by people working in different areas (think PDEs v. Algebraic Geometry v. Number theory v. Combinatorics; top level MSC groups, say); if there are measurable and measured differences in the number of citations gotten by papers in each area; and so on. Google has pointed to studies in which such comparisons are made between different disciplines (mathematics v. chemistry, say) but not at all between areas of mathematics.
Can anyone point to such information?
(I would love to get hold of MathSciNet's raw tables to compute such things... I doubt that is accessible, though)
I ask this here because I suspect the subject interests a few of the meta.MO regulars, who might help me; I don't think the question is MO material (although I believe it is relevant to mathematicians!)
]]>I'm curious as to whether there is any plausible way to "adjust" votes to "correct" for these factors. It's not immediately obvious to me how to do so, but at the same time I sort of think there might be a way.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that if someone were to come up with a proposed adjustment algorithm that we should try to implement it (even assuming that the software allowed it, which I'm sure it doesn't). However, apart from the fact that this seems to be an interesting question in its own right, it could become important one day if some kind of MO-like voting system gets implemented for, say, the mathematical literature in general as a sort of informal peer-review system, and people seriously want to know what to make of the votes.
I was tempted to make this an MO question rather than a meta question, but I chose to follow Linus's example.
]]>I don't think this question belongs on MO. Can people close it? (Following customs established in other threads, I haven't yet voted for deletion, in case the question is useful to others, but I would be happy to do so if people think it reasonable.)
]]>Does anyone know how google picks it picks?
]]>However, these do feel like some kind of honors thesis or even starting point of something bigger. For example, one part of his latest question turns out to be sandwiched between two well-known conjectures, and I have not seen it raised elsewhere. It is possible but unlikely that idle curiosity leads to these group of questions.
Normally I would not think too much about this. After all, sunshine is good (or something like that, sorry English is not my native tongue). But in light of recent events I think I would post this here to see if the moderators and the community have some opinions on this matters. In particular, do we answer such questions? If so, how much should we give? What if a bigger stream of questions arrives?
As I said above, I have nothing against the OP posting these questions. They are nice, I like them and I would probably give similar answers if some graduate students emailed me those questions. What I would like to know is what the community thinks, and whether some consensus has formed over this (somewhat delicate) issue, especially since the OP is anonymous.
I would appreciate your thoughts and comments.
]]>I'm asking this because I've noticed a few questions on math.SE where it seems like one answer has gotten lots of upvotes not because it's necessarily "better" but just because it happens to have been first. (I'm not going to give links because things might change!) I'm not suggesting any sort of fix but I'm just wondering if anyone knows how this works (and if it might be different between different sites running on this software).
]]>Suppose you have Paul Cohn's BASIC ALGEBRA;GROUPS,RINGS AND FIELDS and FURTHER ALGEBRA WITH APPLICATIONS,both volumes of Nathan Jacobson's BASIC ALGEBRA (the new Dover paperbacks),Lang's ALGEBRA and Anthony Knapp's BASIC ALGEBRA and ADVANCED ALGEBRA-and you need to sell one of the sets.
Which one would you sell? I'd like input from people familiar with all these books to give thier opinions based on both thier opinions of the books themselves and thier usefulness as texts. I'll give my opinions when I get some feedback.
]]>(i) As I understand it, the actual necessary costs remain $0, and will be so for the foreseeable future. If that's not true, or if some money can help at all, please let me now.
It's correct that I haven't even given SO Inc. any kind of billing information (they haven't asked for any). I've actually tried to press them a bit to take some money from us, but without success. Why do I want to pay them so much? If we pay them for the site, it's clear exactly how everybody benefits, but if they're doing us the "favor" of hosting the site for free, it's not sufficiently clear what's in it for them, so I worry that we may end up in a position where we have make a decision which does wrong by MO to repay the favor. Unfortunately, it looks like this will remain up in the air for the forseeable future.
(ii) If (i) is completely taken care of: I know that MO takes a lot of volunteer time. I'm not sure about the distribution of the back end effort (not the moderating, which should certainly be completely volunteer), so I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that it is all you. One possibility we'd like to think about is to ask for $10000/year to pay (you) for this. More precisely, we would ask for $5000 per month for 2 months in the summer (although of course the effort wouldn't be concentrated in the summer). This would reasonably combine with grad school or a postdoc.
I certainly don't object to getting paid for things I'm going to do anyway, but I want to be extra careful not to create any conflict of interest, or even the possible perception of a conflict of interest. As far as I can tell, there wouldn't be any such conflict, but this is an issue where I think community opinion is very important, so I'm bringing this question to meta.
Cons: If many people feel like introducing money spoils the intention, goals, or decision processes involved in running MO, I'd rather keep things just as they are. We have an awesome community of volunteers running MO, both as official moderators and as helpful high-rep users. I don't want these people to feel like the project has been compromised. Any decision that would reduce this kind of generous participation would be a bad one.
Another important question is whether many people feel like this would compromise my ability to make future decisions on behalf of the MO community. Perhaps this is mitigated by the fact that this money would be coming out of Ravi's grant, so he effectively becomes an oversight committee.
When migration comes up, I'd like the MO community to be united on terms of migration and the reasons for them. We've already decided that maintaining administrative access (e.g. full database dumps, control of banners, control of custom javascript) is extremely important, otherwise we would be putting too much power in the hands of a for profit company run by non-mathematicians; nice as they are, their interests could very easily part with the interests of the mathematical community. I worry that demanding administrative access might be recast as an attempt to protect a source of income.
Pros: Aside from the obvious pro of padding my buget, I like the idea of being able to allocate some money for things like stickers, t-shirts, cakes, and posters. These expenses are tiny enough that they've easily been paid out of pocket so far. One real potential benefit is that if we can convince SO Inc. to take some money in exchange for more control after migration, I could comfortably pay that out of pocket so we wouldn't have to wait for another grant application to go through.
If you have any thoughts or opinions about this stuff, please post them here. My feeling is that community opinion is the most important factor in this decision, so I'd really like to get some feedback. Ravi says he needs to get the grant together very soon (next couple of days). Hopefully that leaves enough time to hash things out an make the best decision.
]]>The word "recent" should be read as "published less than a decade ago".
]]>Do you have any more? I want one.
]]>