Timeline for Questions about applied mathematics
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 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/
|
|
| Jan 18, 2014 at 20:34 | answer | added | Brian Rushton | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 8:50 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | There was a lengthy discussion on the issue on tea prompted by this question. | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 21:02 | answer | added | user9072 | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 18:34 | answer | added | Douglas Zare | timeline score: 13 | |
| Jan 8, 2014 at 8:30 | answer | added | Gil Kalai | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 21:35 | answer | added | Dirk | timeline score: 28 | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 19:30 | comment | added | user9072 | @FrançoisG.Dorais yes, I know; this was somehow intended as a suggestion for you (the moderators). | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 19:24 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | @quid: CompSci is still beta so we can't open a migration channel, you have to go through moderators. | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 19:05 | comment | added | user9072 | By the way are there any discussion/relation between these two sites (on moderator level)? And/or what about migrating the question in question there? (I do not know that site well; likely one should double check with moderators there first, whence the first question.) How would @UwF think about this? (I saw in your profile you are on several sites but not there.) | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 19:04 | comment | added | user9072 | Possibly it could be useful to figure out what type of "applied" (for lack of a better words) questions should be asked on MO to consider which of these might be better asked on the Computational Science SE where some of the top users are mathematicians too (also in the 'narrow sense' of mathematcians proving thms and working in academia). Of course that there is another site does not make it off-topic here and question can be on-topic on multiple sites. Still the existance of that site could perhaps play a role in deciding what is and is not for MO. | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 18:14 | comment | added | Piyush Grover | @UwF: I think your grieviance towards the MO community is unjustified. I have not seen any bias against applied or interdisciplinary question on MO, provided that the mathematical core of the questions is 1). Well elucidated in the question AND 2). And this core is mathematically interesting in itself. I think your question (in its current form) has failed 1). and hence it is being closed. Usually doing 1). correctly involves the step of modeling the physical phenomenon, which is expected from the person asking the question. I don't see any effort on your part to do this so far. | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 17:33 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | @UwF I shouldn't presume to speak for the closers for this particular question, but I think in general a lot of people don't want MO to become a free-for-all. Thus, we have distributed moderation. You don't have to be interested in a question or have a reference at hand in order to feel it's not right for MO. With regard to attitudes toward "applied math", etc. -- this is why I made this post: to bring such things into the open. I would like readers from a broad spectrum to enter this discussion. I do sense that many "applied mathematicians" (faute de mieux) share some of your attitudes. | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 17:08 | answer | added | François G. DoraisMod | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 16:55 | comment | added | UwF | Francois, Sorry, I didn't mean you by "some people". I mean those that just downvote or vote to close, but don't get involved in the discussion. Todd, Yes, I now see that I should have organized my question in a different way. But I am not happy with the attitude towards applied and/or interdisciplinary subjects that the reaction to my post reflects. I asked for references and added a few lines to explain my interest in the subject. Why do those who don't know any reference and are not interested in the question have to close it? Why not simply ignore it? Does my question do any harm to MO? | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 16:47 | comment | added | Andy Putman | (continued) but the physics (or chemistry, or biology, or...) of the thing they are trying to model. While these are certainly interesting and important areas, I simply don't think that they are a good fit for MO. | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 16:44 | comment | added | Andy Putman | There are different kinds of applied mathematics. The kind that proves theorems is clearly on-topic for MO. However, there is another kind that focuses on model building, numerical simulation, etc. This is a much fuzzier area. Technical questions about the mathematical tools they use (e.g. about numerical analysis) seem to me to be on-topic as long as they are at a sufficiently high level. But questions that are more directly about how to model some phenomena (like the one here) don't seem to me to be on-topic. The problem is that the issues here are not the mathematics, | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 16:32 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | @UwF Obviously there is no need to be "sorry" (or was that sarcasm?). Possibly it would help to relegate your motivation to a section titled "background", and delineate as clearly as possible what exactly you want to know; François several comments ago was expressing his confusion over what the question is. Also: try not to be argumentative ("I don't understand why some people here feel that they have to purge MO of anything interdisciplinary "none-pure"." -- that's kind of argumentative). | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 16:32 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | @UwF: Please read my comments again; I explicitly said that motivation isn't the main issue I see with the question. (By the way, in general, talking about "some people" is not a good way to make friends.) | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 16:22 | comment | added | UwF | @ François My question was a simple reference request. I am sorry that I gave some motiviation for my interest in this question and that this is not 100% purely mathematical. But I don't understand why some people here feel that they have to purge MO of anything interdisciplinary "none-pure". I can not agree with such a restricted view of mathematics. | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 16:13 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | @UwF: The point of what I wrote is that your question is too vague, which has nothing to do with whether it's physics or not. Once you make your question precise, it will be clear whether it is on-topic for MO. If you leave it to the reader to make the question precise, it is extremely likely that 5 users will do that in a way that makes the question off-topic. | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 16:08 | comment | added | UwF | I am looking for theoretical work, yes. But I am not sure why you doubt this, can you please explain what you mean by theoretical work? | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 16:04 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | @UwF: I doubt the first paragraph is the issue. Look at the second paragraph. It seems like your asking for experiments verifying proposed hypotheses. Perhaps you're specifically looking for in silico experiments? (That's what the third paragraph suggests.) Are you looking for theoretical work at all? Maybe? Mostly? The question is not clear about any of this. I don't think classifying the question as math or physics makes sense before those items are clarified. | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 15:51 | comment | added | UwF | I added an introductory paragraph on the Mpemba effect to provide a context for my question. If that is too much physics for MO, then I can delete it or replace it by a link to wikipedia. | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 15:47 | comment | added | UwF | I am not translating a physics question into a proper mathematical question, that is true, and I think this rarely happens. Mathematicians and physicists generally ask different questions, even when their discussion is motivated by the same "real world" phenomena or effect. My question is mathematical, the question is whether numerical analysis and simulation methods can deal with the basic equations describing heat flow with convection and evaporation or other fundamental processes that are responsable for the Mpemba, according to the various theories proposed by physicists and chemists. | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 15:32 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl Mod | In my opinion, if a physics question is translated into a proper mathematical question, it is on-topic on MO. However if it is asked as a physics question, it is rather off-topic. The given question on the Mpemba effect simply explains this effect and asks for explanations in terms of mathematical models -- hence it does not provide this translation. Therefore I think it qualifies as a reasonable physics question, but rather not as a mathematical question. | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 15:11 | history | asked | Todd TrimbleMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |