Maybe I should elaborate a tiny bit: I see three possibly answers here:
I feel only marginally competent to decide between alternatives 2 and 3, but at least I don't think I am in favour of alternative 1.
]]>MO seems like a good place to answer such a question definitively. It is similar in genre to a question recently asked by Greg Kuperberg that tries to straighten out the facts about a particular widely circulated urban legend.
However, after seeing several discussions here on meta about non-technical questions, I get the impression that a sizable number of regular participants don't want questions like this on MO. Should I pose it or not?
]]>Remark: The typical pattern for using CW mode in this way is:
In my opinion, cramming everything into the question text is a rather confusing use of this site.
]]>Besides this question being generally problematic, it also strikes me first as unansawerable (in completeness) as well as, and most importantly, rather pointless. In addition to having already create a quite aggressive exchange in the comments.
If the questions would at least ask how to avoid accidentally picking a journal of questionable reputation I might consider this as an in principle reasonable question (which does not necessarily mean it should be on MO).
Of course, theoretically, having a completele list of all these journals (leaving matters of subjectivity in some cases aside) would allow one to also answer the question I raise. However, first, a complete list is unlikely to be compiled (as there are many, new ones appear, and so on ) and, second, it seems a most ineffficient way to me to approach the (practical) question I mentioned.
However, it seems to me the distinction between the two questions 'create a complete list' vs 'how to avoid them' is not made in a sufficiently (IMO) clear way by various contributiors in the discussion (in already twenty comments). One could consider this as harmless or even irrelevant yet it [the lack of this distiction being clearly made] appears to me to be a main reason for a already quite agressive exchange in the comments.
(Further note on this exchange: I cannot know if I saw all comments and I know some where (self-)deleted, with good intentions, but I was active in the exchange, in trying to calm it down, with at first some success or so I thought, but quite limited success in the end it seems. From what I saw, and circumstantial evidence, it seems to me that the accusation, not directed at me to be clear but at somebody, that there were 'racist hateful comments' as quite exaggerated and/or incorrect thus the claim seems insulting; that being said a comment I saw, while in my opinion intended as playful [which I tried to convey and thought had achieved, thus everything related to this is gone], reasonably could have been read as insulting, too, which explains the reaction, yet still 'racist hateful' seems very exaggerated and/or incorrect, from what I saw.)
In any case, I would appreciate if this question was reclosed (I have no interest to partcipate in another open/close conflict) and best deleted as soon as possible. Or at the very least the question could be reformualted and the comment thread cleaned.
ps. I thought about handling this via a flag but then since the situation is complex for 140 characters I decided for this way of raising the matter (besides it is in my opinion also somewhat typical and thus possibly of wider interest than the specific case at hand, but this really only in parenthesis). [Added: It occured to me I could raise a flag in addition, which I did, referring to this.]
]]>If it's appropriate, I'll migrate it here as soon as the bounty is expired (and of course, if there's no answer in MSE).
]]>http://mathoverflow.net/users/18465/luke
His questions are typically answered quickly, sometimes with comments to the affect of my sentence above. He's been posting questions of this variety for several years now, so it's hard to imagine these are actually homework problems but they're certainly not research questions.
I thought I'd mention this quirky trend.
]]>Cf. this older question, though I acknowledge that was back in the Old Days.
I was under the impression when MO started that it had a place for questions one honestly ran into, which one thought an appropriate "expert" or "specialist" would know about.
(Disclaimer: I have met the OP and think he is a serious researcher. This of course colours my judgement.)
]]>It is a reference request regarding data what numbers people name when asked to name some number.
It was closed quickly and has now three votes to reopen. The main (only?) objection seems to be it is not a mathematical question.
Personally, I somehow like the question but can see why one might not consider it as mathematical enough for MO (although this would be a debate to be had, but I can see why somebody would say so).
It was closed and now has three votes to reopen. (I did not yet vote to reopen, but am considering it.)
]]>Since it is not very visible let me mention that it was already closed and then reopened. For details on who vote what see the revision list of the question
My opinion, in brief, is that this question is either going to be argumentative or irrelevant. Personally, I consider most existing answers as off-topic and/or of poor quality. [Added Jan 2nd: it is still quite mixed IMO, but at least meanwhile there seems to be a reasonable number of reasonable answers.]
The arguments put forward in the comments are somewhat the 'usual' do not imped subjective disucssions calls. I have no great interest to debunk the comments one by one but still some remarks:
First it is in my opinion not true that most people on this site are professional mathematicians (for example, there are plenty of students on the site), second there is a difference between discussing something subjetive somewhere (even in public, though most of the mentioned examples even refer to typically non-public things making the argument even weaker) and here on MO, third in most democratic communities there are, say, speed-limits on roads that are enforced without this being generally perceived as undemocratic, oppressive, dictatorial, or whatever.
]]>(ps. I do not wish to personally get much involved in the discussion as some of the involved users, I believe, have some general problem with me; but still I want to say that Peter Samuelson's comment is essentially precisely my opinion.)
]]>In my opinion in its current form it is completely unsuitable as an MO question; but some modifications seem more reasonable, so please those in particular OP that want this question, perhaps you could at least modify/clarify it a bit.
First, I am not completely happy with the way of closing, but I can see why this happened like this (since with a link to a comic as its only reference, its timing, and its general form it does not come of as serious question even), since at least to me the closing reason misses the point a bit, or at least it can be understood that way.
Second, my problem with the question is that it is extremely lazzy to the extent of being actively harmful to the success. To say something specific, what is the precise role "Navier--Stokes equation" plays in this question. Some scenarios:
OP actually wants to know only about Navier--Stokes.
OP would in fact also be interested in answers involving any PDE and Navier--Stokes was just an example that came to mind.
OP would in fact also be interested in answers involving any type of (advanced) maths.
Moreover, it is all but hard to find something on this on the web; a minimal amount of preparation and to at least make clear what the actual goal of this question is seems more than desireable.
]]>I do feel, however, that I am unsatisfied by these answers. On the other hand, I am also not sure what answers I am looking for... I was wondering whether or not it would seem reasonable to post this into MO (despite not knowing what answer I am looking for)
]]>I may have misread the question, but it seems to me like something known but non-trivial. That is to say, I think I know the answer, and in the discrete case I do know the answer, but only because this is a calculation I've seen in a few papers. On the other hand, rereading the OP's comment, it is not clear if the question I am thinking of is the question he or she is thinking of.
Anyway, would be interested to hear other people's thoughts on this one.
]]>If it is acceptable, I'll post the problem in MO when the bounty expires in MSE.
]]>Suggestions are welcome, especially why the question does not add up.
]]>Note that similar issues were discussed in this thread.
My opinion is that this question is fine, for roughly the same reasons as I gave in the previous thread.
]]>Thoughts?
]]>I searched for questions which had answers and were deleted by the owner. I found 91 such cases, but I don't know what to do with them. I guess I'll post them here so that 10k+ rep users can have a look at them and vote to undelete them if appropriate (in the next comment because of the character limit). Note that 10k+ rep users can also see what questions have the most undelete votes by looking at the delete tab of the tools menu.
I welcome any ideas about how to better deal with this issue. Ultimately, humans have to look at the deleted questions to decide if they're worth undeleting, but perhaps there are better criteria I could use to narrow down the search space. Maybe I should even be widening the search space to include questions that don't have any answers, but do have "substantive-looking" comments. How would I programmatically look for such things?
Also, is there a good way to filter out questions that (somebody has verified) really should stay deleted so they don't add noise to the sample every time I refresh the list?
]]>So for me, this doesn't automatically fall into the class of questions which do not admit good answers, although I admit that as phrased it could easily invite a bunch of not very good ones...
]]>http://mathoverflow.net/questions/85251/non-computational-software-useful-to-mathematicians
seems to be considered accpetable (being open since a day, with only two votes, one by me, to close so far).
As I pointed out in a comment, the way it is phrased would even admit anwsers like 'a webbrowser'. Now, I am willing to admit that this is a bit of a silly overinterpretation, and OP argues that the examples given should make the intent clear. However, in my opinion, this is not as much of an overinterpretation. Version controls systems are mentioned and an anwer is some syncronisation tool. IMO these are essentially as standard programs, though perhaps less wide spread, as a text editor or a browser.
Furthermore, the notion of software/programm underlying this question is very broad (including such things as OEIS, which IMO is mainly a collection of data/a database which most people I guess access via some web-frontend). So is any useful mathdatabase ontopic or is the criterion that it does have a nice frontend? Say, the Cremona's tables of EC are useful, there are handy ways to access them, so if OEIS is ontopic I guess this would be too.
Or, LaTeX is mentioned as example; I do not want to do some hairsplitting whether LaTeX is a programm, but what I find starnge is that then 'beamer' (a documentclass for LaTeX) is mentioned in addition. So, amsart is also useful, I guess this would count as silly answer; but I guess if I named some documentclasses for creating posters this might count.
Should all this be collected in this one question?
In particular, some things are really duplications of existing questions. Which I pointed out, yet OP did not follow up.
Well, in brief, to me this question is an instant close; 'tools' question are always a bit difficult, but if it is as unfocused as this one... Apparently it is not. What am I missing?
]]>What everybody must/should know achievements in 2010 and around
Quick facts: Closed yesterday without much discussion. Now 3 votes to reopen.
Personal opinion: On the minus side it is really subjective and possibly argumentative. IMO, in case it is reopened people should at least please refrain from expressing their disagreement with nominations verbally. On the plus side it could be interesting.
]]>As I say in a comment: you can consider categories whose objects arise in analysis and whose morphisms have some flavour of continuity. Hence, category theory can be used in analysis. Fin. Or as Paul Siegel says
What I can say is that many interesting and nontrivial categories do arise in certain parts of functional analysis and it is useful to understand the structure of these categories
So I wanted to start a thread where people could try and convince me otherwise.
]]>It is my opinion that for such a high-profile question it might be better to arive at a consensus or a solution via discussion rather than to send it through various open/close cycles.
My opinion is: It was good it was open for a long time, but now I would prefer if it was/stayed closed.
Here are the reasons.
It seems to me the software is not really made to deal with question with that many answers. I am often on a slow connection with poor harware, it is really difficult to handle this and related questions (on technical grounds).
There is an ever growing risk of duplicate answers and almost duplicates. Which is particularly large as there are only limited ways to structure and or search the answers (for the latter one could use google in a targeted way as a work around, but still); cf. the first point.
Finally, and semi-seriously, if a false belief was not added over that long a time it can't be that common.
Afterthought: In case some should really want to keep it open, one solution I could imagine is that one or a group of these users does for this question what Gil Kalai did/does for Fundamental Examples that is make it so that one can get an overview over the already given answers.
]]>What is the main goal of a paper really?
Quick facts: closed couple days ago. Now edited with the idea of reopening. 3 votes to reopen.
Personal opinion: I voted to close the original version; my opinion stays essentially unchanged by the edit.
]]>It is currently closed but has a vote to reopen, and some dicussion is developping, thus a meta thread.
Personal comments:
I am not among the voters to close, but I can perfectly understand why one would vote to close this. Depending on various unspecified circumstances any among the listed four options could be advisible. So, this is not a 'real question'. (As documented, one can still answer something useful of the form, if this than do that, but still I do not think this is a suitable MO question.)
That there are some questions on MO that are similar, as was pointed out, is not much or any reason to not close this one.
]]>