Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 18 of 18
The topic mathematics in nature seems to have little to no mathematical content. The answers I've seen thusfar are not insightful or interesting, and the question seems like a fishing expedition.
I have voted to close.
Here's a topic for discussion: perhaps Harry could spend less time clopping around MO in his jackboots, and more time doing actual mathematics? Perhaps we, the mathematical community, will find him less annoying once he's managed to tell us one mathematical thing we didn't already know? Better: maybe having once managed to discover something nobody else knew before, he'll dislodge the gigantic chip from his shoulder and realize what's worth fighting over and what's not?
@Storkle: Perhaps you should keep this discussion on topic. Perhaps you should stop making assumptions about how much time I spend on mathematics. Perhaps you should realize that it's not really fair to expect me to tell you one mathematical thing you don't know while I'm still (admittedly) learning the basics.
Maybe instead of attacking me, you could explain why you think this question is worth losing your composure over.
@Robin: Whether or not you find the answers interesting does not mean that you are interested in getting any specific answers. Are you as interested in getting an answer to this question as someone else is in getting an answer to a question about actual math?
As far as mathematical content goes, there is no reason to believe that mathematicians should be able to give better answers than naturalists. There is nothing in the question that requires any sort of expertise in mathematics.
If you look at some of the better big-list questions, they often have something to do with how mathematicians practice mathematics (or give information that could be applied by a mathematician). I think that this sort of big-list, where it's something along the lines of "write down a bunch of instances of X" (where X is some curiosity related only tangentially to mathematics) is inappropriate for MO.
@JBL: I don't care one way or the other about whether or not this question is closed.
@Harry: "Perhaps you should stop making assumptions about how much time I spend on mathematics. Perhaps you should realize that it's not really fair to expect me to tell you one mathematical thing you don't know while I'm still (admittedly) learning the basics."
I didn't make any assumptions about how much time you spend on mathematics; it's not necessary to do so b/c it's obvious that, letting x be the amount of time you spend on mathematics, x+(substantial amount of time spent aggravating people on MO)>>x. The sooner (substantial amount of time spent aggravating people on MO) approaches zero, the faster you'll be able to tell us something interesting (and actually, I'm looking forward to hearing something interesting, so get on with it).
I don't have a strong opinion about the actual question, which I have not even read yet. But I see no point in turning this Meta thread into a personal attack to Harry.
It wasn't intended as a personal attack (and there's nothing particularly personal in the details---just what's available here online at MO). It's a not-as-polite reminder, in the spirit of Matthew Emerton's available here
that Harry would be better off focusing on actual mathematics. Certainly it's not my intention to embarrass Harry any more than is inevitable. Really, it's a shame that nothing ever came of Harry's resolution to stop commenting and focus just on mathematics. I believe he promised this in response to Kevin Lin's suggestion here
But unfortunately Harry later deleted his promise, and seems to have completely forgotten about it.
As for the point of writing this here: well, it's may be a vain hope, but I really do hope that publicly reminding him of this will make him think more about what to spend his time on.
This thread has gone off-topic. If anyone has complaints abouts other users' behaviour, please contact the moderators directly, at email@example.com.
Am currently enduring (la vie est dur!) restricted internet access so can't comment too much on the original point of the thread, or indeed MO or meta, as much as I'd like right now. But I'd like to echo Andrea's comment.
That question has been an unmitigated disaster from the beginning. It reminds me of the Borges taxonomy of animals.
At the risk of bringing to the surface things best left in the depths, +1 to VP for the Borges reference/analogy.