Timeline for Why is a topology made up of 'open' sets? Part II [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
34 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Mar 30, 2010 at 1:25 | history | closed |
Harry Gindi Theo Johnson-Freyd S. Carnahan♦ Noah Snyder Anton Geraschenko |
not a real question | |
| Mar 30, 2010 at 1:18 | comment | added | Noah Snyder | That said I do hope whether or not the question gets closed you stick around. We want MO to be a welcoming community. I hope that none of the comments above will discourage you from continuing to contribute. | |
| Mar 30, 2010 at 1:16 | comment | added | Noah Snyder | I agree with Theo, this is a discussion topic not a question which is why I've voted to close. Per Gjergji, discussions don't work well with this site's interface which is designed for questions that have answers. I think the reason many people want to have discussions on Mathoverflow is because of MO's large userbase. But if someone thinks a discussion-centric site could attract a similarly large readership they should start a different page. Otherwise I think people are better off subscribing by RSS to the blogs they like rather than trying to turn MO into a blog. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 19:30 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | Minhyong- Community wiki has two important consequences: it lets other people edit the question (in fact, many users have edit powers, but it's considered quite rude to extensively edit a non-community wiki question), and it means that both the question and answer don't accumulate points for the users involved. Community wiki is intended for questions that are less likely to have a canonical correct answer. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 19:15 | comment | added | Anton Geraschenko | @Minhyong: You shouldn't worry that you're causing trouble, and you certainly shouldn't take anybody's objections personally. As Pete said, the issue of "discussiony questions" comes up periodically. See this section of the FAQ: mathoverflow.net/faq#discussion. For an explanation of what "community wiki" means, see mathoverflow.net/faq#communitywiki | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 16:08 | comment | added | Minhyong Kim | Dear Pete: OK, I'm not quite sure I know what it means, but the box was easy enough to find. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 16:07 | history | edited | Minhyong Kim | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 550 characters in body; Post Made Community Wiki
|
| Mar 28, 2010 at 14:50 | answer | added | Dan Petersen | timeline score: 7 | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 8:18 | answer | added | gowers | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 7:36 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | Dear Minhyong, Earlier this evening I sent an email "warning" people about your mild-mannered ways -- it looks like I was justified. Seriously, you're not causing any discord, and these issues have come up before. If you want to take a step towards making some reasonable people happy, you might edit your question and click the "community wiki" box. I predict that this will also keep it from being closed. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 7:27 | comment | added | Minhyong Kim | By the way, perhaps I should repeat that I don't mind the question being closed, just in case someone feels a bit delicate about it on account of my advanced years :). You folks are doing quite a nice job with this site, and I wouldn't want to be a cause for any destructive discord. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 6:52 | comment | added | Minhyong Kim | The question is still in the title. Perhaps the less specific question `How to teach point-set topology?' would have been better. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 6:19 | comment | added | Theo Johnson-Freyd | Where's the question here? I count only one question mark in your entire post, and it's buried deep in fifth of seven paragraphs. Please make the question more prominent. As written, I vote to close: not a real question. I would vote to reopen if the post were actually asking a question. P.S.: I'm torn about whether to comment on meta or here, but I want MK to see my comment, and it's a somewhat separate direction from fpqc's concerns. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 3:33 | comment | added | Anton Geraschenko | I agree with Gjergji and fpqc. It's fine to post follow-up questions, but as far as I can see, this is purely a discussion question, and such questions just don't fit well into the MO framework. I would probably vote to close if I weren't a moderator. Rather than expanding this comment thread even more, let's move the discussion to tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/314 | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 2:04 | answer | added | Scott Carter | timeline score: 8 | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 1:02 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | I'm sorry if I came off a bit nasty in my initial comment; it was certainly not my intention to be unwelcoming. Rather, I was concerned about the discussion-y nature of the question and the fact that it was motivated by the other thread filling up. I apologize for my rudness and hope that you will continue contributing here. | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 23:25 | answer | added | Deane Yang | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 23:24 | comment | added | Minhyong Kim | fpqc: Certainly if you have an answer that uses homotopy theory as an aid to (1), I'd be very happy. I hope my question makes clear that (3) was included as rather obvious motivation for (1), but which is alas too advanced to be used in an introductory course. I'm certainly not attempting a survey of topology! | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 23:17 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | In fact, the subject that unifies these three areas is homotopy theory, so I don't understand how you could leave it out. | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 23:16 | answer | added | Neel Krishnaswami | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 23:14 | comment | added | Minhyong Kim | fpqc: BTW, my initial inclination was to include a sentence about the the divergence of my discussion from homotopy theory, when I recalled the work of Hopkins, Lurie, etc. | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 23:12 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | My objections: 1.) This question mischaracterizes the study of topology. 2.) The title suggests that this is a follow-up to the DISCUSSION of the other thread. 3.) There doesn't appear to be a question here. | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 23:11 | comment | added | Tom Church | You have very cleanly and expressively described a longtime concern of mine with the way point-set topology is taught and learned (especially in the section starting "I felt later that this motivation had not been quite right"). I have no idea what the answer is, but I think it is a very important pedagogical question. | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 23:11 | comment | added | Deane Yang | I also vote to keep this question. If anything, MathOverflow should find a way to foster discussions like this. | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 23:07 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | Obviously, the "Gods of Math Overflow" which Minhyong is refering to is only one God, namely fpqc. | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 23:06 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Minhyong -- I find your question to be appropriate and interesting, and I look forward to reading the answers. I'm very sorry for the lecturing and browbeating you've received in some of the comments here. Please be assured that your contributions on MO are most welcome. | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 22:58 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | (3) is entirely independent from (1) and (2). In fact, one might say that it would be useful to combine the study of (1) and (3) to get (2). | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 22:57 | comment | added | Minhyong Kim | fpqc: That's OK if people want to close. Meanwhile, I do realize that the progression I described is more appropriate to an algebraic geometer than a true topologist. | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 22:51 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | The question should be closed or left open based exclusively on its own merits, not on the usefulness of the answers. This question is discussion-y and vague, and it is at best community wiki. | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 22:47 | comment | added | Gjergji Zaimi | PS. In the mean time, I am not voting to close, or voting down, because a) a lot of effort was put into asking the question, and b) because I am not able to judge or predict the usefulness of the coming answers. | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 22:44 | comment | added | Gjergji Zaimi | I feel that you just discovered, what's being repeated over and over: that MO doesn't have the right format for long discussions; such threads would split into other threads, it would be harder and harder to keep track of what ideas were previously proposed, and in the end the questions answered might have nothing to do with the original thread. This will confuse future users who are directed to these threads because they want to know a fact, theorem, or solution to a specific problem, which is what I feel MO is really about. This is not to say that long discussions are bad of course. :) | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 22:34 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | This is not appropriate. Please return to the other question. I have voted for closure and urge others to do the same. | |
| Mar 27, 2010 at 22:28 | history | asked | Minhyong Kim | CC BY-SA 2.5 |