The mathematical modeling SE proposal (http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/57490/mathematical-modeling) is closer to becoming a real site, but it needs more work. This site is for questions that are about models for real life phenomena. For instance, I was at a math talk yesterday where they described a PDE modelling bacteria with flagella, and they described how the model gave incorrect results until they ellipsoids instead of spheres and incorporated random 'tumbling'. This site is for people to ask questions about such models.

Any new site requires 60 followers (there are now 80+) and 40 'sample questions'. These are not meant to be answered; everyone who visits the site adds up to 5 questions (each <150 characters, the size of a tweet) and others vote on those they like.

Because many of the followers (including me) are theoretical mathematicians, we have trouble writing expert-level or even graduate-level questions.


If you can think of an interesting question on mathematical models (versions of TQFT, improvements on mean field theory, Einstein's treatment of viscosity for spheres) of 150 characters or less, please follow this link, scroll to the bottom, and ask your questions: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/57490/mathematical-modeling

Questions of overlap with other sites are discussed on this site as well. This proposal has support from mathoverflow, mathSE and scicomp.


2 Answers 2


The area 51 process doesn't require you to post a full question in 140 characters.

You just have to post a title of a question. Similar to how the title of a question on a full Stack Exchange site is limited by 140 characters, this is too.

During this stage of site development, the focus is on what types of questions will be asked (which can be gleaned from the title), instead of the full content of the question.

So no need to ask for people to come up with short questions. Ask people to come up with good questions with titles that say something about the question. Not as hard :)

Good luck with your site proposal!


I don't want to bash your Area 51 proposal, and I do see that it can take up the sort of chunk of knowledge-space that applied mathematics departments take up in many universities. However, when it comes to physics, I have a hard time distinguishing "a mathematical model of a physical situation" from... physics, you know? I would consider questions about the maths of the models you quote,

versions of TQFT, improvements on mean field theory, Einstein's treatment of viscosity for spheres

as legitimately parts of physics, and I would expect they would be entirely on-topic on this site.

What sort of take are you guys thinking of taking about these sort of models? What sort of questions would be off-topic here but more destined for such a site?

  • $\begingroup$ Also, you guys have some weird scope overlap with Computational Science, c.f. this meta.scicomp question. $\endgroup$ Jan 30, 2014 at 14:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think it's ok to have an overlap. $\endgroup$ Jan 30, 2014 at 14:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Dimensio1n0 With an established site I'd have my reservations, but I guess it's OK. With a beta site that's trying to get established, I don't think it's quite as clear-cut. $\endgroup$ Jan 30, 2014 at 14:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .