@JM Nope, because quite a few were asked in the last two weeks. The only recent you don't seem them now is because I've been gradually retagging them last night.
@AsafKaragila I think we need to establish some sort of Hardy-Littlewood rules about our e-mails :) I'll reply to it when I have something to say. Thanks!
What I mean is that, over at MO, everyone is an expert, so people can more easily see that an answer is great even if it is concisely written, like some of fedja's answers.
But over here, you really have to go out of your way to teach, especially compared with the likes of Arturo. So I guess I am not disagreeing with Asaf, but just trying to justify why that is the case.
Over at physics.SE it is even worse. There are people asking about advanced concepts in quantum field theory or general relativity by beginning their questions with "I am not good with mathematics, so it'd be best if you give an answer without any mathematics."
But asking for an intuitive explanation for Axiom of Determinacy is just wrong. The axiom is fairly simple to understand, but is used in parts rather hidden and advanced in descriptive set theory.
I kept telling the OP that he needs to study a bit of set theory and logic to be able fully understand it. Giving "just" intuition of advanced topics is... well, wrong.
I tried to do my best, though. Seeing how I got all these upvotes, I think I might have somewhat succeeded. I wish Andres Caicedo would have answered the determinacy part, he surely can explain that much better than me.
After math.stackexchange.com/questions/53350, I'm now wondering if there are any examples of papers/books where the author used a Roman letter and a suspiciously similar Greek/Cyrillic/whatever letter in his mathematical expressions...
@WillieWong Why is there even a tag for "transformations"?
@JM I've seen a book where the author uses the old German letters plus normal letters, zo he had script-UMD and normal UMD and something in between. I forgot his name, he seems to be big in operator theory.
@JM I think most mathematicians know to avoid that. Though I did recently referee a paper that used \alpha and \beta as coordinate indices, and then decides that they need to define a function called \alpha and a vector valued function called \beta, so you end up with a disgusting expression looking like
\partial_\beta\alpha \beta^\alpha
@JonasTeuwen Don't ask me. I think the tag is a remnant of the olden days before I started caring about cleaning up tags. It looks like it was born during the original private beta
It seems like that you get more chance to get funding in The Netherlands if you have a lot of "bad" publications than a few very good ones... Is that the same in other countries?
