Timeline for Is the question "Why fund the research in pure mathematics?" allowed on MO?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 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/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:54 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://politics.stackexchange.com/ with https://politics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.mathoverflow.net/ with https://meta.mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Jul 31, 2014 at 5:31 | comment | added | vzn | maybe could fit on Academia? it would seem the same justifications are those of funding scientific research in general.... | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 16:37 | comment | added | user9072 | "In what meta-MO was useful there?" It delayed an essentially off-topic question being asked for a couple of month. ;-) | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 11:53 | history | edited | Sebastien Palcoux | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
I've added an hyperlink to a new related question and a comment.
|
| Apr 9, 2014 at 0:08 | history | edited | Sebastien Palcoux | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Possible come back after politics.se + I've improved the content: public organization "and" universities.
|
| Apr 8, 2014 at 20:24 | comment | added | Sebastien Palcoux | @MichaelZieve: The question is now posted on politics.se (see here). According to the answers received, I would come back here for requesting a migration on MO. | |
| Apr 8, 2014 at 19:53 | history | edited | Sebastien Palcoux | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
I've posted my question on politics.se
|
| Apr 8, 2014 at 18:58 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | @MichaelZieve : I think a question on "what kinds of arguments can be given in support of having (either some or more) public funding research for math" would be exactly as on-topic and appropriate as a question on "what kinds of arguments can be given against having (either some or more) public funding for math". Personally, I'd consider either to be way off topic. Some might think the opposite. But if someone considered one of these more on-topic than the other, I'd say that person was being extremely (and highly inappropriately) subjective and argumentative. | |
| Apr 8, 2014 at 8:24 | comment | added | Michael Zieve | @StevenLandsburg: would you object to a question that simply asked what kinds of arguments can be given in support of having (either some or more) public funding for research in pure math? Since pure math research is difficult for most people in congress to relate to, I think it would be beneficial if mathematicians could pool their ideas of how best to present our subject. One could argue that this type of thing belongs on a private blog, but the MO forum reaches more people and hence would likely get better answers. Is there a downside to this? | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 15:29 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | In addition to the fact that it's off topic, I'd also vote to close this as subjective and argumentative, because that it's wording takes it as a foregone conclusion that we should in fact fund research in pure mathematics. I'd also worry about commenters failing to distinguish between the questions "Should the amount of funding be greater than zero?" and "Should the amount of funding be greater than its current level?", which are quite separate questions and should not be jumbled together in one MO thread. | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 14:44 | comment | added | David Zureick-Brown Mod | @YemonChoi What about using the chatroom? | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 12:34 | comment | added | Michael Zieve | I am in favor of having this question on MO. I occasionally find myself in the situation of needing to explain to somebody "important" why they should fund research in pure math. I would be happy to know more arguments I can present in such a situation. | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 10:54 | comment | added | Sebastien Palcoux | @StevenLandsburg: Nevertheless (after seeing your webpage) I think you could give relevant and useful answers to this question. | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 10:34 | comment | added | Sebastien Palcoux | @YemonChoi: I see several solutions: 1. Post and keep this question open for a limited time (for example 1 month) on MO, or 2. Create a chat-room on this subject, or 3. Post this question on politics.sx, as suggested by Bjørn and in spite of Alex's comment. | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 5:14 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | I think this question would be quite off topic and I would vote to close it. | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 1:52 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | If it were up to me, I would not have this question on MO; but that's because I don't see MO as a chatroom or forum for open-ended discussion | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 23:49 | history | edited | Sebastien Palcoux | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
also the arguments of the mathematicians
|
| Apr 6, 2014 at 23:13 | answer | added | Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen | timeline score: 11 | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 22:57 | comment | added | Kim Morrison Mod | I think it would be great if instead of downvoting questions on meta, more people wrote "No. [more characters to fulfill the silly character requirements]" as an answer. But it's more work, and it's not anonymous, so this is probably wishful thinking. | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 15:18 | comment | added | Sebastien Palcoux | Does the downvotes are against this post on meta or against the post I'm asking for on MO? In any case, why? | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 14:21 | history | asked | Sebastien Palcoux | CC BY-SA 3.0 |