Timeline for By what criteria do you judge whether mathy questions should or should not be considered off-topic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 11, 2014 at 19:15 | comment | added | David Z Mod | On point 2: if you have to ask the OP whether something was their motivation, then you don't know the physical motivation... | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 15:47 | comment | added | DanielSank | @JohnRennie: I'm not arguing that mathy questions should be left open. My OP just asks how people make this decision because I'm trying to understand how the site works. It appears to me that whether a mathy question is left open or not is somewhat random, but depends a lot on whether the math topic is something that particle theorist like. That doesn't seem sensible to me so I'm just trying to understand what's going on. | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 15:27 | comment | added | John Rennie | @DanielSank: this would be a good example. The Schechter function is used to describe luminosity in astronomy, but the OP has neglected to say so. If the question is closed as too mathy that's really the OP's fault. (Actually it's likely to be closed as homework :-) | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 13:31 | comment | added | ACuriousMind Mod | @DanielSank: The review system is designed so that a minority will rarely close a question, since three leave open votes will remove a question from the queue, and the minority closers would then have to visit the question by themselves to vote to close (not that that's impossible, but it's less likely). | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 9:56 | comment | added | John Rennie | @DanielSank: if the post started "I'm trying to use linear algebra to describe <insert physical system of your choice> ..." and it still got closed I'd agree, but how often do such questions get unfairly closed? I guess there will be occasions when the OP thinks it's obvious what the physical significance is and doesn't bother to mention it, and maybe the more mathematically sophicated site members will agree. However I maintain that if OPs don't make the effort to show some physical significance they can't complain if their questions get closed. It's their responsibility not ours. | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 9:24 | comment | added | DanielSank | @JohnRennie: As an example, suppose there are 1000 users and 10 of them don't know what linear algebra is. Suppose someone asks a question about linear algebra which is of intense intereste to 990 users. The other 10 see that question and think "Hm, that doesn't sound like something I use in my physics work, so I vote to close." The question is canned, and unless someone makes a meta post that's the end of it. Doesn't that seem screwed up to you? | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 9:22 | comment | added | DanielSank | @JohnRennie: First of all, thank you for actually engaging me in this discussion. I don't know whether or not you should be paralyzed by doubt, but I do think the current system is messed up. Using your and ACuriousMind's approach, if a small number of people with voting privileges who aren't familiar enough with a mathematical topic to guess its relevance to physics view a question about that topic, the question gets canned. This seems backwards. Why should the ignorance of a small number of users be allowed to close a question which might be of interest to others? | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 7:10 | comment | added | John Rennie | @DanielSank: and I feel much the same as ACuriousMind when I can see the physical motivation, but I'm an experimental scientist and don't have ACuriousMind's mathematical sophistication. The point is that if I can see no physical motivation and the OP hasn't provided one should I remain paralysed by doubt about my own inadequacies or should I VTC? | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 6:56 | comment | added | DanielSank | @JohnRennie: That sounds like an argument for not giving the OP the benefit of the doubt. Seems reasonable, but then see ACuriousMind's answer were he specifically says he does give the benefit of the doubt if he feels the math topic is relevant to physics topics he knows about. | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 6:03 | comment | added | John Rennie | @DanielSank: true, but how much effort is it for the OP to add a sentence indicating the motivation for the question? Compare with with the effort required to read the question and try to figure out its physical significance, if any (multiplied by five for the required five VTCs). | |
| Oct 9, 2014 at 23:53 | comment | added | DanielSank | +1 for answering the question so clearly. It's interesting that you say you vote for migration if you don't know the possible relevance to physics. Given that close/hold/migration occurs when a small number of users vote for it, this essentially means that a minority of people unfamiliar with possible applications of a mathematical technique or idea can cause closure of a question which might be of interest to many. This precludes extension of the site's scope to areas of physics less practiced by existing members. This is why I asked whether people vote out of personal interest or site law. | |
| Oct 9, 2014 at 23:39 | history | answered | ACuriousMindMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |