tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Mathematical research inspired in fundamental part by mathoverflow)

znmn comments on "Mathematical research inspired in fundamental part by mathoverflow" (18553)

znmn — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:11:53 -0800

The title of the book "The Linear Algebra a Beginning Graduate Student Ought to Know" is reminiscent of titles of questions on Mathoverflow.

When will there be a book called "What should be learned in a first serious schemes course?"

Henry Cohn comments on "Mathematical research inspired in fundamental part by mathoverflow" (18547)

Henry Cohn — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:22:44 -0800

Hmm, I assumed the discussion software would not include trailing commas or periods, but I guess it does. I've inserted spaces. Thanks!

Joseph O'Rourke comments on "Mathematical research inspired in fundamental part by mathoverflow" (18544)

Joseph O'Rourke — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:15:55 -0800

@Henry: Five of your links don't work because they incorporate trailing punctuation. I guess we don't have authority to edit each other's posts here on meta, otherwise I'd fix them. Of course it is easy enough to edit the URL in your browser.

I agree with Joel and have voted to reopen.

JDH comments on "Mathematical research inspired in fundamental part by mathoverflow" (18541)

JDH — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:52:32 -0800

I continue to believe that the question would do well on the main site. Just imagine: well-written answers summarizing the information of Henry Cohn's comment just above and many others, with enlightening summaries and links both to papers and posts. It would be very nice. The answers would be very mathematical and surely very interesting, and the existence of the question and answers would be highly supportive of the MO community. We could all point to it with pride. (Whereas we wouldn't really do this with the relevant meta-thread; indeed, one can take Henry's comment as evidence against the argument that the meta thread is functioning in the desired capacity. This may be a case where one would want the MO-style question/answer format on meta, since it would seem to lead to a better organization of the material.)

So I continue to recommend re-opening the question.

Henry Cohn comments on "Mathematical research inspired in fundamental part by mathoverflow" (18509)

Henry Cohn — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:54:42 -0800

If there were just one or two examples, it might be worth making a special exception to the first rule of MO to highlight them, but there will be a lot of answers. For example, a full-text arXiv search for "mathoverflow" yields 91 results, and just among the first ten, five of them seem to be directly inspired by MO in the sense of this problem (and not just citing it): http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0665 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1288 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.3990 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4635 , and http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2296 .

Incidentally, http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5469 introduces the charming term "mathoverflow-hard", which seems to refer to something that has been asked but not answered on mathoverflow. However, an answer appeared two months after the paper was written.

grp comments on "Mathematical research inspired in fundamental part by mathoverflow" (18508)

grp — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:38:45 -0800

I think it is reasonable to have a small amount of "bad" MathOverflow questions, so that the basic principles of good posting are made clear by contrast. As long as this ends up being the only one of its type, I think the forum will survive having it.

Gerhard "An Example To Be Avoided" Paseman, 2012.02.16

Scott Morrison comments on "Mathematical research inspired in fundamental part by mathoverflow" (18506)

Scott Morrison — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:13:49 -0800

I would actually be content having it on the main site, with strict limits about acceptable answers (e.g. arXiv'd papers citing MO), just because I think it's cool that people cite MO now. On the other hand "The first rule of MO is, you don't talk about MO (except on meta)" is a pretty useful rule.

deane.yang comments on "Mathematical research inspired in fundamental part by mathoverflow" (18505)

deane.yang — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:38:06 -0800

I agree with David and Bill.

Bill Johnson comments on "Mathematical research inspired in fundamental part by mathoverflow" (18504)

Bill Johnson — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:48:20 -0800

I agree with David.

David White comments on "Mathematical research inspired in fundamental part by mathoverflow" (18501)

David White — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:09:36 -0800

This question has already been closed once and reopened once, and the comment thread is getting long. I suggest we take further discussion here. This is the link: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/88563/mathematical-research-inspired-in-fundamental-part-by-mathoverflow

It seems to me that this question is a duplicate of the Meta.MO thread "Where to keep track of MathOverflow success stories," so I would advocate for closure of this question. Also, the FAQ clearly states that "MO is not for questions about MO." Joel commented that having this question on MO rather than Meta would make it periodically pop up to the front-page whenever someone adds to it, so the whole community would be aware of another MO success story. That's true, but because the Meta thread is already sticky you can always just check meta and see when that thread was last modified. So I don't see the benefit of having what should be a Meta question on the main site. I agree with quid that it sets a bad precedent.