Timeline for What do you really like about working with/contributing to math-SE?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
51 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 18, 2018 at 20:27 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | But if you're also partly continuing to engage out of perplexity, then maybe underwriting it is some curiosity? There's something I'm seeing in the linked Q/A pair that you are not seeing. I want to show it to you. If you want to see it, that could be a common goal to proceed on. Alternatively, or jointly, perhaps there's something you want me to see, that is important to you, that you don't feel I'm seeing. I'm happy to entertain that, if you can tell me why it's important to you. In any case at this point I think we need some kind of common goal or we're just talking past each other. | |
| Feb 18, 2018 at 20:14 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | If we continue the conversation, I think it makes sense at this point to try to seek some alignment around what we are trying to accomplish together before doing any more point-by-point discussion. You seem both irked and perplexed by what I've been saying. If all I'm doing is irking you and you continue to engage only out of being irked, then maybe there isn't further for this to go. I'm not going to be talked out of disliking how the exchange I linked went down, so I can probably only irk you more, which likely isn't of interest to either of us (certainly not me). | |
| Feb 18, 2018 at 19:47 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | My point of view is informed by my priorities. I want all people who are trying to learn math to be successful. This is what matters to me here. I love math.SE because it has been a wonderful tool for me personally to learn math, and for many others, and I believe it has the potential to be an even better tool. My whole stake in the culture of this site springs from this priority. I have no stake otherwise. | |
| Feb 18, 2018 at 19:42 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | I don't see it that way. I am not out to get anybody. (Note that is actually the third time I've said this. I made a point of it twice before, once in December and once after bringing in this individual example.) The answerer's actions are totally normative for the culture of this site. It's the culture I'm objecting to. I don't blame the answerer for this culture. I don't blame any individual. I do see the culture as both unpleasant in itself and an obstacle to the site's stated mission, but I don't see this as anyone's fault. | |
| Feb 18, 2018 at 19:40 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | If this is your goal, then we are talking past each other. I can't hope to get you to see what I see in that example if you experience what I see as an attack on somebody you want to defend. | |
| Feb 18, 2018 at 19:36 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | It's not entirely clear to me what your goals are, but this is my best guess: at this point, you appear to want to defend somebody (the answerer in the linked example) whom you feel I am unfairly treating. Although this individual wasn't a subject of the first half of the conversation, perhaps your initial motivation was essentially the same, except in the abstract. I said in my answer "...I share your feelings about the way that the site's culture treats new users" (addressing amWhy). Perhaps you feel that this comment is slandering people and you want to defend them. | |
| Feb 18, 2018 at 19:30 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | The conversation began when you pressed on something I said in the answer above. I've made an effort to account for myself. My goals at this point in this conversation are clear to me, although probably unreachable: I want to get you to see what I see in the example I linked. The stance I've been articulating throughout this conversation is important to me, and I believe the example captures the essence of it, and I think the site will be a better place to be and also accomplish its goals more effectively if more people adopt this stance, so I'm trying to promote that. | |
| Feb 18, 2018 at 18:59 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | I am still left with the impression that you haven't really understood any of the aspects of what I've said that are important to me. This may be a product of a fundamental difference in our priorities that renders such an understanding too much to hope for. | |
| Feb 18, 2018 at 18:50 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | I can't tell if continued engagement is helping us understand each other or not. I do appreciate your taking the time. | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 22:52 | comment | added | quid Mod | I think what irks me is that you make a big deal about that downvote and a perceived subtext of the answer, as if a slightly negative feedback would be such a big deal. Anyway, to link it back to the original, I am astounded you never seem to notice behavior of the form displayed in that answer on MO. | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 22:41 | comment | added | quid Mod | To be clear, I have no problem with the question (it's a clearly presented question), and again it was not received that poorly either. But I have no problem with the answer either. It's an alright answer; not a great one but there is nothing wrong with it either. Further, I do not see why the question should be praised either. Somebody had a misunderstanding and asked about it. Now it's cleared up. That's great. Still the question is about a "silly mistake". There is nothing wrong with making a silly mistake. Thus, there is also no need to sugarcoat that fact. | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 22:34 | comment | added | quid Mod | A couple of brief points. First, I am sorry that you found the remark in the last comment insulting. I did no mean to address your personal actions. It was intended as a general observation. Second, the answerer might well find your descriptions of their actions insulting, too. You seem set to read them in a negative way and attributed ill will to them. Third, the "in the moment" goes with "confused"; the idea is not that the must realize it instantly. Yet once they realize they should remark that it was simple confusion not a subtle problem. | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 16:28 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | [As an aside: you write, "It is a major problem that not few students of mathematics have way to little sense that exactness matters in mathematics. This is perpetuated by the cuddling of the kind you seem to want." This is insulting. If you look at all my interactions with low-rep users, including in the OP under discussion, you will see I always model attention to precision and encourage their attention to precision.] | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 15:46 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | At any rate, it seems you see the OP very differently - their lack of understanding is to you evidence either of unwelcome obstinacy or else a fundamental defect in their relationship to mathematics. Then this example is a nonstarter in terms of helping me illustrate my point. | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 15:42 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | [The fact that the OP is correctly punctuated and mathjaxed is just icing. To me the important thing is that the OP is making an effort to independently check something that is in a book.] | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 15:29 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | The success of this case in illustrating the point that I brought it up to illustrate is dependent on seeing the OP as an earnest student of mathematics making every effort to understand something. To me, this is abundantly clear, starting with the fact that they made an effort to independently verify what they (incorrectly, it turns out) thought Scharlau was saying. (This was the opposite of a HW problem: no teacher would have assigned to the students to prove something false. The OP only had the question because they were trying to understand what they read in a book.) | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 15:17 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | Note that the answerer under discussion never said to the OP, "you are misreading Scharlau's definition. The statement that $b_q$ is bilinear is part of the definition itself, not a consequence." | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 15:10 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | You write "Either the OP realizes they were completely confused in the moment or they have major problems with their understanding of mathematics as a whole." Is my linked question about Weibel evidence that I have "major problems with my understanding of mathematics as a whole" if I don't realize my mistake instantly? (Note that my first comment on the accepted answer did not realize the mistake yet. Not until my answerer [Eric Wofsey] said explicitly to me, "you are misreading Weibel's claim" did I realize the mistake.) | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 15:06 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | It seems clear to me from the OP's comments below my answer that the OP was walking into the situation with the mistaken impression that $q(\alpha x) = \alpha^2 q(x)$ was the definition of a quadratic form, prior to even reading this definition in Scharlau. | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 14:57 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | This question was reasonably well-received, but the structure of the mistake is essentially the same. In my situation a proposition was being stated of the form "A and B together are equivalent to X," and I misread it as "A is equivalent to X and in this case B also holds." The OP under discussion misread "q is a quadratic form if A and B" as "q is a quadratic form if A, in which case B also holds." | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 14:53 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | Here is an example of me making essentially the same mistake made by the OP under discussion: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1441395/… | |
| Feb 17, 2018 at 14:49 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | Dear @quid - your last replies reveal a wider gulf between our points of view than I was prepared for. I hoped this example would clarify the point of view I was trying to articulate before, but now I am not at all sure it has. To me it seems you must have forgotten what it is like to misinterpret something you read. Since I assume you are a research mathematician, this is confusing to me because I regard the occasional misinterpretation of a sentence as an ordinary event in the life of a research mathematician. | |
| Feb 12, 2018 at 0:02 | comment | added | quid Mod | That said, I agree that the question-post is well presented. Yet also there was no vote to close and it did get answers. Right there was a down-vote. The merit of this is debatable. But overall I still do not find the reception that bad. Styles of communication also differ. In practice the answerer did patiently explain their point. Maybe some annoyance did shine through (after all they were in essence accused of talking non-sense), but they continued the conversation. | |
| Feb 11, 2018 at 23:46 | comment | added | quid Mod | That's not a minor thing. Either OP realizes that they were completely confused in the moment or they have major problems with their understanding of mathematics as a whole. In either case it is not clear it is such a good idea to sugarcoat. It is a major problem that not few students of mathematics have way to little sense that exactness matters in mathematics. This is perpetuated by the cuddling of the kind you seem to want. | |
| Feb 11, 2018 at 23:39 | comment | added | quid Mod | OP replied very quickly. They should have thought about what was said rather then insisting on their point. While I can see why you as a reader of the question got confused (with def and theorem), it is difficult to see how the writer of the question can be so confused as they write "defines". I suppose it can happen, but it is very strange. As the answerer commented it is as if somebody says a number $n$ is said to be even if it is of the form $n=2m$ with an integer $m$. Now I pick some $n$ and set $n= 2m$. How can I show that $m$ is an integer. It makes no sense. | |
| Feb 11, 2018 at 16:52 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | Maybe you're reacting to a comment I deleted, using your moderator tools? (Can you do that?) I did initially leave a comment on the answer [wrongly] disagreeing with it with confidence. I second-guessed myself and deleted this comment, replacing it with the one currently up, within minutes. In any case, what I did is not material to how the answerer engages the OP. | |
| Feb 11, 2018 at 16:39 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | I don't think there is any evidence that the OP did not take the answerer seriously the whole time. | |
| Feb 11, 2018 at 16:35 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | But I do not think that how this went was right. Even if I accept your "higher ed" limitation in scope, that question fits this scope, and was well-formed by every standard I can think of except for that answerer's standard, which would have required the OP to already know the answer to the question before asking it. This question deserved a warmer welcome. | |
| Feb 11, 2018 at 16:34 | comment | added | quid Mod | I guess the other side of the story would be that neither OP nor you seemed to initially take the answerer seriously (while it was them that was right). I'll reply in more detail later. | |
| Feb 11, 2018 at 16:25 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | and acknowledged the confusion, and thanked the answerer for straightening him/her out. At this point, the answerer wrote, "I'm glad I could help, but please note that I had already said that in my second comment." Now I am not trying to throw this particular answerer under the bus. Like I said previously, I see everything going on here as part of academic mathematical culture, and this user was just embodying that culture in a very typical way. I am not judging him. | |
| Feb 11, 2018 at 16:22 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | and dismissive. The issue is that the OP misread a definition as a theorem. The OP engaged the answerer in comments below the answer. A roughly-dozen-comment exchange ensued in which the OP engaged earnestly and politely, seeking understanding, and the answerer remained impatient and basically repeated the same technically correct comment that the OP had clearly not understood yet. At that point, I added a new answer that explicitly addressed the OP's misunderstanding, and the OP thanked me for clearing it up. A half hour later, the OP returned to the comments below the other answer cont'd | |
| Feb 11, 2018 at 16:10 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | this exchange came to mind today because I just encountered a perfect illustration of the dynamic I was talking about. Have a look at this answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/2645941/13120 The question is earnest, thoughtful, and shows work. It is also written in coherent English with correct spelling and punctuation (except for a stray backslash) and equations are correctly mathjax-ed. Although per above I disagree with your "higher ed" scope limitation, this is even a college-level question. But the first vote was a downvote, and the first answer (the one I linked) is impatient cont'd | |
| Feb 11, 2018 at 16:06 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | @quid - It seemed to me this conv. had reached a natural conclusion in Dec. I'd made my pov clear, and you had too, I felt we more or less understood each other, and as no concrete cases were on hand, it seemed to me that was about it. (I rather strongly disagree that it is fair to regard "studying math at any level" to mean "higher education" without saying so, but that seemed an unnecessary bone to pick at the time. I come from K-12 education, so I know a lot of people who would be excluded by your def. but who would read "studying math at any level" and assume it meant them.) But cont'd... | |
| Dec 23, 2017 at 1:57 | comment | added | quid Mod | That said, I agree that sometimes there may be an overemphasis on certain etiquette aspects, personally I do not see the major issue with imperatives and all caps, if they appear to be use in good faith. The other things is that there is also a risk in being too ambitious. If somebody is not able to communicate somewhat coherently in English they likely won't be able to use this site. I think we should acknowledge this. (I know there is some old meta post that suggests the contrary, but this is in my opinion well intentioned but ultimately misguided.) | |
| Dec 23, 2017 at 1:46 | comment | added | quid Mod | Yes, I suppose implicit in the requirements is a reasonable knowledge of English. The site is in English. Down the road their may be different language versions as for SO (or there are different sites altogether). Until then I think we should basically expect good enough command of English. (Incididentally this is less clear for a global research-oriented site.) As a combination of this I do not see the problem with requiring somewhat coherent language. An undergraduate student should be able to write. And if they don't, it might be best they notice that it is a major problem. . | |
| Dec 23, 2017 at 1:37 | comment | added | quid Mod | Thank you for the detailed elaboration. Let my start with this "We value more specific things like knowing how to spell[...]" You seem to think this is a non-issue at research-level. Yet there are plenty of mathematically qualified individuals that do not know how to spell, in English. It is not clear what you meany by "studying math at any level" I am on record as saying that to me it means following some higher education involving mathematics, if it does not mean something restrictive the combination with "professionals in related fields" makes little sense. | |
| Dec 22, 2017 at 22:42 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | p.p.s. I guess I'm hoping that explaining myself so fully here is some sort of at least personal first step along that path. | |
| Dec 22, 2017 at 22:41 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | p.s. just for the sake of clarifying that I am really not trying to judge anyone individually: I was once scolded by Amy for a curt comment toward a low-rep user. (I can't find it now but it definitely happened.) I remember feeling stung and misunderstood, because I hadn't meant to be rude. That said, it's ultimately more important to me that the pov Amy was sticking up for in that exchange gain currency than how I felt that time. (a) As in my answer, I acknowledge these are my priorities and they aren't everybody's, and (b) I have no idea how to get there from here. | |
| Dec 22, 2017 at 22:29 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | practice, will this site be what it says it will i.e. "for people studying math at any level"? If so, since people studying math at any level are not in general mathematically enculturated, we need a culture that successfully enculturates them. My subjective impression of what happens now is that a fraction of them are successfully enculturated and the majority are alienated. I believe in the stated mission of being a resource to people studying math at any level, and to me this adds up to failing it. This is why it bothers me on MSE and not on MO. This completes my answer to your question. | |
| Dec 22, 2017 at 22:23 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | As above, even this doesn't really bother me on MO, because we didn't say that place was supposed to be for them. If I walk into a place I'm not invited and people are mean to me, well maybe that was mean, but then again I wasn't invited. But here, we invited them. It doesn't say, "MSE is for people studying math at any level and who have also spent sufficient time around mathematicians to know how they like to be engaged with." Yes there is guidance in the description, but people don't in practice instantly adopt a community's culture by reading its welcome pamphlet. So, in Cont'd... | |
| Dec 22, 2017 at 22:16 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | We value more specific things like knowing how to spell and how to mathjax one's equations. We don't like it when people seem "disheveled." I can go on. I am a part of this culture and I have had every one of these reactions. I'm not trying to act morally superior. But I do think that this culture tends to be invisible to us i.e. we don't act like it's our culture, simply how any civilized being should behave, so we treat people who are not enculturated as though there is something wrong with them. Cont'd... | |
| Dec 22, 2017 at 22:09 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | "people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields." Do we mean this? If so, a fact of life is that people studying math at any level are very often not mathematically enculturated. The culture here is very particular - its own flavor of the already very particular culture of academic mathematics. We value professional presentation. We value traditional mathematical aesthetics like elegance. We are offended by a sense that somebody has just walked in off the street and thinks they can engage as an equal with people who've paid their dues. Cont'd... | |
| Dec 22, 2017 at 22:03 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | On neither site do I have any objection to the idea that there are quality standards for questions. As Amy brought out in an exchange with Qiaochu in the comments below Qiaochu's answer, what I have an objection to has to do with tone: abruptness, dismissiveness, and the absence of an attempt to engage the newbie positively toward a better outcome. This is the thing to which I don't object on MO, or not nearly as much as on MSE, and the reason is that that newbie is outside the scope of MO's mission but explicitly inside of the scope of MSE's mission. MSE says it is for | |
| Dec 22, 2017 at 21:54 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | But I would like to address your question "[if not...] why exactly you have a problem with this site imposing and enforcing its restrictions while there is no problem with MO doing the same." I believe this question is important and I care about what I am about to say in answer: | |
| Dec 22, 2017 at 21:53 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | @quid - You know both sites better than I do and my subjective experience of the greater expansiveness and generosity of MO toward "pass initial muster" questions is nothing more than my subjective experience based on a lot of time on MSE and a lot less on MO. I don't want to be taken as making a strong case I'm attached to. Maybe there is absolutely nothing to it beyond one user's (my) experience. (meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/3518/… ?) In which case, maybe it was irresponsible of me to read in. I don't know. | |
| Dec 22, 2017 at 16:55 | comment | added | quid Mod | This site also imposes restrictions on the questions that can be asked. I'd be interested if you see many posts that comply with all those restrictions and are still received poorly or if not why exactly you have a problem with this site imposing and enforcing its restrictions while there is no problem with MO doing the same. Moreover what about this user's reception. | |
| Dec 22, 2017 at 16:47 | comment | added | quid Mod | The volume of questions there is much lower, and on average the readers are more qualified. In that sense it is unsurprising that questions that are considered as good there get a better response on average; just comparing the average number of views per post makes this plain. It is also true that here one can be faced with users commenting "out of their depths" more frequently, which can be exhausting and annoying. It is also true unorthodox but potentially reasonable questions are sometimes treated poorly here. That said: | |
| Dec 21, 2017 at 21:46 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | I suppose my comment was insufficiently contextual. My experience is that questions that pass "initial muster" on MO get a more generous, thoughtful, expansive reception than on math.SE. I grant it's a totally subjective point, in addition to which I guess it was confusing in context because the rest of the paragraph was about questions that often don't pass "initial muster". | |
| Dec 21, 2017 at 21:42 | comment | added | Ben Blum-Smith | @quid - Was suppressing that matter because my perception is the volume is small, but - right, MO sometimes gets users whose questions lie way outside the scope of its mission. The number seems small to me (though you know better than I) and they are easy to recognize. Their cold treatment also don't bother me in the same way because MO's mission explicitly excludes those users while math.SE's mission explicitly includes them. (Though I don't see a reason why people shouldn't be polite across the platforms.) Cont'd... | |
| Dec 21, 2017 at 18:36 | comment | added | quid Mod | 'To me there is a striking difference with MO: over there, the atmosphere is more collegial and less policed. Reading in, I experience this as a consequence of MO operating from the presumption that we are all already "in the club."' Not sure if those askers would share your judgment, mathoverflow.net/questions/288967/factorial-of-sums mathoverflow.net/questions/288958/… mathoverflow.net/questions/288988/… And these are rather harmless example. There may be some selection bias at work. | |
| Dec 21, 2017 at 14:39 | history | answered | Ben Blum-Smith | CC BY-SA 3.0 |