tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Riemann integral in physics)

Scott Morrison comments on "Riemann integral in physics" (22552)

Scott Morrison — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 09:35:04 -0700

I'm about to delete the tail end of this discussion (which has degenerated to insults from anonymous users), and then close the thread. I have contacted the (empty set of) non-anonymous non-moderator users who had participated. I have kept a copy of the deleted messages. As a "precedent", please be aware that if you post anonymously here and annoy me even slightly, I am prone to hitting the delete button.

Scott Carnahan comments on "Riemann integral in physics" (22528)

Scott Carnahan — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:25:02 -0700

@jbc: The question in the body text was a total of one sentence missing its terminal punctuation, and disagreed substantially from the title question, so I don't think a claim that it was written in a "coherent and comprehensible language" is particularly justified. To elaborate, if Riemannian integration were sufficient for physics and engineering, then the answer to the title would be "yes" and the answer to the body would be "no". As it happens, the Riemann integral is strictly speaking insufficient for some physics, while the Lebesgue integral is also insufficient, so the answer to both questions is "no".

Also, what is the point of claiming that certain arguments for deletion were not coherent or comprehensible? Do you think that makes a convincing case for restoration?

Andres Caicedo comments on "Riemann integral in physics" (22516)

Andres Caicedo — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:32:47 -0700

Will Jagy comments on "Riemann integral in physics" (22512)

Will Jagy — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 17:28:58 -0700

@jbc, the user, Constantin, was suspended until mid July. So something pretty bad happened, perhaps involving sock puppets voting for each other; I was not really watching. The question was short enough as to constitute a tabula rasa: no evidence the asker knows anything, no evidence he doesn't.

jbc comments on "Riemann integral in physics" (22510)

jbc — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:16:31 -0700

I would like to urge that this question be re-opened. I think that it addresses an interesting point that is well worth discussion and must admit to having been dismayed by the fact that it suddenly disappeared without any notice as to the why and wherefore. On a more subjective level I would like to add that it was written in a coherent and comprehensible language, very much in contrast to some of the arguments for its elimination visible above.

abatkai comments on "Riemann integral in physics" (22440)

abatkai — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:11:48 -0700

This might be relevant: http://tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1592/trollery/#Item_30

The User comments on "Riemann integral in physics" (22439)

The User — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 11:11:22 -0700

@quid Ok, you are right that I should not have said “most”, but there are also many people who still complain about questions.

quid comments on "Riemann integral in physics" (22438)

quid — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 11:04:00 -0700

I agree with Todd Trimble, in particular since from the timeline it seems very likely the question was deleted by a moderator and they would not delete it under any normal circumstances. (Tangentially, The User, please do not infer what "most people" thought about the question from what is visible, I for one just stopped complaining or doing anything about such things as it got too tiresome and frustrating over time. But your question is a natural one. This is really only a tangential remark out of principle. And I would say there is a quite good chance the question gets restored if the moderators are made aware of the interest of some people in it.)

Todd Trimble comments on "Riemann integral in physics" (22437)

Todd Trimble — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 10:51:34 -0700

Elsewhere on meta, François Dorais recently commented "Users that have questions or concerns regarding this and related situations should contact moderators@mathoverflow.net." I expect this comment could apply to this question as well.

The User comments on "Riemann integral in physics" (22436)

The User — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 10:18:43 -0700

I already noticed that the question was posed by a user with a certain “historical background”—but is that a reason for deletion? (that is a serious question, I am not that experienced here) It seems like most people regarded this question as not completely non-valuable and there were some discussions.

Andres Caicedo comments on "Riemann integral in physics" (22435)

Andres Caicedo — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 10:13:03 -0700

See here and here for some background.

The User comments on "Riemann integral in physics" (22434)

The User — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 10:02:54 -0700

Why did this question disappear (http://mathoverflow.net/questions/133049/is-riemannian-integration-sufficient-in-physics)? One person had objections regarding the question (off-topic…), but I did not read any other objections.