Typically, closure is accompanied with one of a few canned messages, e.g., the one mentioning Math.SE as a site for general questions in mathematics, and no other accompanying comments. Is that an example of intolerance or use of an iron fist? I'm trying to get an exact idea of what you mean. — Todd Trimble ♦ 12 mins ago
12:00 PM
@ToddTrimble I suppose fedja will respond, but the way I understood the post is that sometimes MO folks seem to be over-eager in closing questions.
One example, which I know of simply because I interacted with fedja a bit, can be seen here: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/19138/2017/12/1
And quite recently you and Fedor Petrov have reopened this question, after it was initially close: How to evaluate this integral?
I will admit that my comment, with a link to math.SE post, might have contributed to that closure. (Only after posting the comment I've noticed that the question was about the integral and not about the limit. However, knowing the limit probably still counts as useful enough to be posted in comments.)
I suppose that similar discussions have been around long before MO joined SE network. For example, I see Elitism for elitism's sake on tea.
BTW How to evaluate this multiple integral? was relatively quickly close on math.SE and then deleted by the OP.
12:29 PM
Hear, hear. This problem has come up numerous times, on the other side as well where non-expert reviewers also vote to close when they shouldn't, using some superficial criteria. I think it's the latter which bothers me much more, since it discourages new people from wanting to participate. — Todd Trimble ♦ yesterday
1 hour later…
1:34 PM
@MartinSleziak I agree with you that incorrect migration is just as bad as an unwarranted closure. Indeed, what was the point of migrating this one mathoverflow.net/questions/282730/… say? Note that the migration was done on the same very "not research level" basis I abhor so much, while the real issue with the question is what I pointed out, say, here mathoverflow.net/questions/288411/… Do you agree with this assessment? — fedja 5 mins ago
As I am below 10k+, I do not see the question proof for mini batch mini-batch gradient estimator linked in the previous post.
Still, after a quick google search, it seems that it was copied by some scraper sites before deletion.
Can somebody with sufficient reputation confirm whether this is indeed the complete content of the post?
> Suppose a mini batch size m selected uniformly from size n. And a loss function L(x, y, θ), θ is the weight to be optimized. How do I prove that the excepted avg gradient for this loss function is the same as the true avg gradient for n?
@fedja Since only 10k+ users can view deleted posts, I don't really see what your "batch" example actually said. If the contest is actually the same thing I was able to get from Google Cache, then I think it was reasonable to expect that the post is going to be closed on the target site. To me it seems that post with such content should be closed (but not migrated). — Martin Sleziak 9 secs ago
@MartinSleziak And this mathoverflow.net/questions/288478/the-sobolev-space-w1-4 looks like a sure migration to me (if you disagree, let me know what is wrong with it for MSE). Let's see how it will end up (I'm not voting) — fedja 1 min ago
1 hour later…
3:00 PM
@MartinSleziak Yep, it is. And any person who would care to think of whether the question is clear or not instead of thinking whether it is up to his standard of research level or not would vote Close(Unclear what you are asking) instead of Migrate(Not research level). So IMHO it is still the same attitude I lament about and not a system defect or MO/MSE standard differences that leads to high percentage of migration rejections you are unhappy with. — fedja 2 mins ago
@fedja It seems to me that we have digressed from your original problem to question what should and what should not be migrated. If we want to continue this discussion, maybe it would be better to do so in chat, so that we do not leave here too many comments that are unrelated to the issue at hand. — Martin Sleziak 9 secs ago
I will add this very recent question as an example of a post which should be closed but not migrated: Discuss the continuty of a real valued function.
After you handled it the way you did, I agree that pure closure is appropriate. As to the batch example, you are, probably, right. I rather cared about whether to send it out at all than about where exactly to send it. As to the digression from the original theme, yes and no (see my last comment in the main thread)
I am below 10k points, but you should see in the revision history to which site the post was migrated.
3:13 PM
About your Sobolev space example - I am definitely not qualified enough to judge whether it should be closed on MO. And whether it would be closed on math.SE - it is pure speculation.
@fedja The Thomae question would not be closed because it is too trivial. It would be closed with the close reason "missing context".
> IMO ideally anyone casting a "no effort" -close vote should be able to solve the problem themself. I am aware that the policy I suggested may place too high a burden to the first close-voter. That's where that ideally came from.
I am not sure to which extent you are familiar with PSQ/missing context disputes on Mathematics Meta.
> This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level.
All I am saying that anybody who is familiar enough with current way question like that are handled on math.SE can immediately see that Thomae question would be closed either as missing context (or as a duplicate) unless the OP adds something more to the question.
IIRC closure and duplicate does not mean that migration is rejected. But closure as off-topic/missing context would lead to a rejected migration.
At least I will ask this. You're post on meta suggests that handling such question on MO is too harsh and the comments are unfriendly/arrogant.
If Discuss the continuty of a real valued function and the comments are the way they are now, would that be ok, or is it still unsatisfactory?
3:25 PM
3:29 PM
3:35 PM
I think it is somewhat misleading to think the difference between MO and MSE mostly a difference of cultures. Much of the structure required at MSE is a necessity that comes from it being the second largest SE site and by being frequented by drive by users trying to dump their homework[...] — Michael Greinecker Oct 24 at 17:18
[...]The MSE meta lingo for problems lacking any context is PSQ for "problem statement questions", and this notion came mostly out of discussions on how to deal with homework questions. The need for context also arises because one may want to help a specific asker. You don't often read "Sorry, we didn't learn that concept yet." on MO. — Michael Greinecker Oct 24 at 17:18
You don't often read "Sorry, we didn't learn that concept yet." on MO See my (8th from the top) comment here mathoverflow.net/questions/288191/… :lol:
@user2478159 I think that if you spend some time figuring out exactly what you really want to ask and post the question in a new thread, I'll think of it :-). Patchwork is never good in my experience though we still do have some leeway in the current argument. — fedja 14 hours ago
@user2478159 Just write $F(3\cos x)=\sum_{k\ge 0}a_k\cos kx$ (Fourier) and put $P_k(3\cos x)=a_k\cos kx$. Note that $a_k$ decay faster than any power and $x\to 3\cos x$ is a diffeomorphism of some arc to $[-2,2]$, to get the bounds for $P_k^{(m)}$. The estimate $|P_k(z)|\le C_{0,0}(1+|z|)^k$ is just the maximum principle for $G(z)=P_k(z+\frac 1z)z^{-k}$ outside the unit disk. As to analytic front sets, I managed to read only $3/2$ of $4$ volumes of Hormander when I was a student, so I don't understand the words. However, if you translate it into elementary language, I can think of it. — fedja yesterday
3:42 PM
It is an exact equivalent of "Sorry, we haven't learned this concept yet". And I can bring any OP who asks an analysis question on MO to this state (well, probably Terry should be excluded) if I choose to answer in the language I know. It is OK to request to translate into common tongue on either side
I am not sure whether it makes much sense to reiterate the discussions which were held again and again before.
There aren't many things as frustrating as writing a good answer to a question without context, and then the OP comments "I don't understand any of these concepts". Of course, the main goal is to help others, but it is much easier when you know what the OP is after. You can even have several posts with the same question, but with very different answers, if they are calibrated to different levels and techniques. So when you ask someone to show their work, they have to reveal what they know about the problem, which can give a good estimation as to what sort of answer is sought after. — Asaf Karagila May 6 '16 at 19:05
My suggestion would be - let's try to improve the C(X,Y) post at least a bit to see whether it gets reopened.
4:07 PM
I have edited the post and I have explicitly mentioned in the edit summary why it was edited by somebody else, not the OP.
I do not view math.SE primarily as the help site. By which I mean that it is probably more important whether the Q&A pair is useful for other users who display the same question later than whether it is useful to the OP.
To me it seems that the OP would, in this specific case, probably benefit much more from the conversation about the question in chat. That is much more interactive and the OP would be able to ask about specific steps which they do not understand.
4:22 PM
Something along those lines was discussed here: Suggested Guideline for “I Don't Know Where to Begin” Questions
If I had one of these three people in my office, I would ask them to write down the definitions, and we could proceed from there to have a discussion about it. On this web site, the users most in need of this kind of back-and-forth discussion are those least likely to participate in one, so I don't think we can usually help them. In the past I have often left comments....
suggesting that the writer should start by writing down the definition of compactness; these comments are almost never answered. (Item 3 is a happy counterexample.) My current practice is usually to downvote the question (as a warning to other readers) and move on quickly.
5:00 PM
So the experiment did not work out as we wished - the reviewers considered the improvements insufficient for the post to be reopened.
5 hours later…
10:09 PM
To me it seems that the OP would, in this specific case, probably benefit much more from the conversation about the question in chat. That is much more interactive and the OP would be able to ask about specific steps which they do not understand. This is always an option and I use it now and then (see here mathoverflow.net/questions/288136/… for instance).
Takes my time, of course, but it is my problem. So my response to There aren't many things as frustrating as writing a good answer to a question without context, and then the OP comments "I don't understand any of these concepts". would be "perhaps, but why do you care? The person who answered should decide what to do and he can end up with making a snarky remark and voting to close, but what entitles him to such behavior is his giving an answer in the first place. And what entitles you?
« first day (1632 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2185 days later) »