@ZacharySelk Consider this a second of @amWhy's nomination.
@ZacharySelk I'm looking at your senior thesis right now. Are you still working in that general area? And, if so, may I be so bold as to suggest that you might be interested in a book?
@XanderHenderson Thanks man. And I am vaguely interested in that area. I haven't read that book but I have heard of it, thanks! Currently I am working on related areas of stochastic analysis, in particular stochastic PDEs, rough path theory
@XanderHenderson Basically, I am interested in PDEs with a driven force that is (the derivative of) a stochastic process. Problem is most stochastic processes we care about are not differentiable. If the process is probabilistically nice, say Brownian motion, the probability aspects can save us a bit. But not completely and if the process is less nice (both probabilistically and analytically) we need much more powerful tools. I am interested in those tools.
I'm currently working on a paper with my adviser on some nicer expressions for some expressions you get in rough path theory
2846230: Simple probability problem about time of arrival I encountered this in the review queue. The fact that is a PSQ (originally just a picture) would worry me much less than the attitude the OP is displaying in the comments.
Problem statement without showing attempts here: Convergence of zero points – It seems that my comment (which even contains a hint) costs me 12 downvotes :)
@user21820 I disagree with that. I think that while not a very good question, it is a valid question. It might deserve to be downvoted, but not closed. Moreover, the OP was receptive to the remarks given by the answers, showing that it's not a crank attempt to disprove set theory.
@MartinR Well, twelve downvotes on your posts and twelve votes cast by the OP today - that seems suspicious. As they have been cast within span of two minutes, I am pretty sure the script will reverse them in the next 24 hours.
@XanderHenderson I don't think you characterize the first group well. I welcome all level of questions; I just want to see effort and/or motivation on the question, not a PSQ essentially assigned to us to do for them. For me, "interesting" is not a crucial consideration. So I really don't like the question, because you're stacking the cards for users to opt for 2. There are many, like me, who don't fall fully under either of your two groups/camps.
Oops... @XanderHenderson I should have said I'm not keen on the answer you provided. I am both egalitarian regarding level of math of a question; I don't like to be assigned any question, no matter the level of math it reflects. I don't like problems stated in the imperative mood. I'd like to see questions that reflect the asker's participation in trying to articulate their difficulties, and offering context. I don't see that position reflected in either description.
To me it's more a matter of emphasizing "teaching a person to fish", rather than merely spoon-feeding fish to and for a person.
Nor do you address one of my greatest concerns about the posting and answering of bare problem statements: That the practice, perhaps inadvertently, but none the less, is damaging to the quality of this site, and reinforces users to return, with no better a question, expecting someone to prove, do, solve, evaluate, it for them. And word of mouth communicates "Come to MSE; they'll do your homework for you." Answering PSQs merely reinforces the increase in posting "do my work for me" questions.
And, many in Group 2, oblige in doing an asker's work for him/her, and spoon-feeding. Reinforcing, again, the notion that MSE is a homework-completion service.
I read your description of group I to express a rather cold and distant picture of users upset with PSQ's, for reasons that don't much reflect my beliefs. In contrast, your description of Group II, infused with characteristics (egalitarianism, empathy) that are shared by most, whether in group I or group II), implying those aren't characteristics found in Group I. Alright, I've said enough.
@AsafKaragila I think that anyone who tries to take logarithm of a set should not have the sheer cheek to ask why Cantor couldn't come up with his/her proof, since it is simply nonsense and not even right/wrong. People are of course free to disagree with my assessment. Most likely the asker will not try again, but that does not mean the post was not a semi-pseudo-math post.
As for being receptive, I see only one comment from the asker on one of the answers, and that comment itself seems void of real mathematics.
Doesn't matter if it doesn't happen again. We'll see! =)
@user21820 Again, I'm not disputing this. But this is also a product of people thinking about everything in terms of real numbers. True, the audacity of asking why didn't Cantor think about it is a bit baffling, but not something that I'd be surprised.
As far as receptiveness, yes, that one comment, as well as accepting an answer, indicates that this was a positive experience.
@AsafKaragila I suppose you have lower standards for 'receptive', but that's fine! And yes the major sticking point for me was the Cantor-denial. That is the typical feature of such personalities, namely a denial of some famous person. I believe there is even a name for this psychological issue, but I forgot.
As long as it doesn't progress or proliferate like WM... =)
@XanderHenderson I agree with @amWhy that your dichotomy is really the wrong one. I have commented a bit to that effect, but at this point I'm not really invested in this, partly because moderators are 'expected' to act in concert with the other moderators. I think the solution right now is to get more users who treasure sincere mathematical inquiry and will actually act regularly to uphold that.
@AsafKaragila If he sticks to Phil SE, it would fit nicely into the solution given by Underwood Dudley, namely to introduce people of that kind to more of their own. Heheh... Have you seen him on MESE lately?
@user21820 I don't follow any of these sites. But whenever he pops on MO and MSE, I trace at least to one or two accounts on these websites. I usually ask the moderators to contact the relevant website and remove his content. But that never seem to catch on.
@AsafKaragila Most websites on the internet do not have moderators, and even if they do most of them do not care or do not have the capability to judge logic-related cranκery.
@AsafKaragila That would be ideal, but there's no direct communication channel. Anyone could send an email to some website owner saying that they are hosting rubbish. The problem is determining whether that is true.
@amWhy You'll notice that I said that most PSQs are at a lower level, but that they aren't always. I said "These are the kinds of questions that ... are often about material that might be found in a lower division mathematics course at a US university (e.g. problems from a precalculus, calculus, or linear algebra text), though this type of question may contain content of any level."
As I said, there are basically people who feel that PSQs are toxic, and those that don't.
The goal was to get a potential moderator to take a stand without making them defensive.
MSE generates a deluge of questions every day, a fair portion of which are "problem statement questions" or "PSQs". These are the kinds of questions that might be copied verbatim from a textbook and can typically be answered in a minute a two with minimal effort. They are often about material t...
MSE generates a deluge of questions every day, a fair portion of which are "problem statement questions" or "PSQs". These are the kinds of questions that might be copied verbatim from a textbook and can typically be answered in a minute a two with minimal effort. They are often about material t...
