« first day (2989 days earlier)      last day (954 days later) » 

6:17 AM
Spam post about 50 minutes ago, still up:
in Charcoal HQ, 49 mins ago, by SmokeDetector
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in link text in body, potentially bad keyword in body (70): businesssitelist by vnfduib on mathoverflow.net
Again, I'll add a link to meta: What should I do when I see a spam post on MO?
 
 
2 hours later…
8:19 AM
I want to add a polite and spontaneous reply to the moderation/feedback of my recent closed and deleted post with title Examples of contemporary top mathematicians that are synthetic as mathematicians and/or analytical, with identificator MO 402915.
I think that it was a good question, for my it is surprising that one cann't to ask if contemporary mathematicians are in their works synthetic/creative or analytic that was the spirit of the mentioned YouTube talk. To say that the work of a top mathematician is mainly analytic isn't an insult and is part of the discussion of what is research in mathematics. Many thanks in any case.
I add that was my interpretation of last minutes of the mentioned talk
 
 
2 hours later…
9:57 AM
For benefit of users who can see deleted questions, here is a link to the post mentioned above: mathoverflow.net/q/402915
 
 
4 hours later…
1:58 PM
@user250478 Well, I would guess that the vast majority of MO's userbase doesn't speak Spanish (and, even if they did, one is supposed to ask questions that don't depend on supporting material). So they had no way to know from your question what is an analytic vs. a synthetic mathematician and why that is an interesting distinction. Thus, the only thing they could tell about your question was that it is about contemporary top mathematicians.
This is problematic because, obviously, saying someone isn't a top mathematician could offend them, but saying someone is a top mathematician could also annoy people in various ways.
It's possible that you could ask another question on this topic that is well-received, but it would have to start with an explanation of the distinction (could you, say, translate the relevant segment of the talk?). I would also caution you against asking about contemporary top mathematicians. In addition to my suggestion from the comments about asking about historical (but not too long ago) mathematicians, you could ask people if their own research style is analytic or synthetic.
Some questions asking people about their own research style have done well on MO in the past (though the ones I'm thinking of are long ago) and people might have a better idea of this than they do about someone else's work. There are a few top mathematicians on MO, so you might get your wish regardless.
 
2:46 PM
You are very kind and friendly @WillSawin , many thanks to you and previous professor that linked the post. Maybe I'm overeacting in my previous comment in this chat, thus I'm saying I'm sorry to you and all users of MathOverflow. About the comparison is because who are well known for the majority of mathematicians are the "top mathematician".
My mathematics are very poor, but my intention was (in my view/interpretation) to follow the thoughts of the professor in the talk (the quoted minutes) about the great masters in an art (in Spanish "los grandes maestros").
Good day.
 

« first day (2989 days earlier)      last day (954 days later) »