Timeline for How is it off-topic to ask whether the normalization of a local complete intersection is Gorenstein?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 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/
|
|
| May 31, 2016 at 8:32 | answer | added | Olivier | timeline score: 17 | |
| May 30, 2016 at 16:36 | comment | added | Karl Schwede | Personally, I don't think even a basic question on schemes would warrant closure (although they certainly are closed now). | |
| May 29, 2016 at 23:23 | comment | added | Denis Nardin | I'm not sure "at the level of Hartshorne" is so well-defined. A basic question about the definition of schemes might warrant closure, but a basic question on the theorem of formal functions sounds already quite different | |
| May 29, 2016 at 19:28 | comment | added | Gro-Tsen | @KarlSchwede I understand that you're playing the "devil's advocate", but Hartshorne does not define what a Gorenstein ring is and I feel that the concept is already, in itself, more advanced than most of what he discusses (although some will, of course, disagree, and "more advanced" is not a well-defined order). So even if we agree that Hartshorne (or GTM books in general) is not advanced enough for MO, (which I think should at least be qualified — as in "depending on how well the question has been researched ahead"), the particular case discussed here goes even beyond that. | |
| May 29, 2016 at 3:22 | comment | added | Karl Schwede | I actually think we are much too restrictive on what is considered on topic. However, at least in the subfield of algebraic geometry, I feel that students who ask questions at the level of Hartshorne now subject themselves to near instant closure. This is of course amusing as most of the original questions here were questions at the level of Hartshorne. .. | |
| May 28, 2016 at 1:04 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @KarlSchwede what about graduate students learning things outside their field, which is what e.g. those in the UK who hope to get postdocs have to do? Not to mention those who have lectureships, but still need to learn such things? I refer people once again to the questions I asked about finite group theory or Lie groups on MO... | |
| May 28, 2016 at 0:25 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | I would be the sort of person to ask such a question, if I came across some more sophisticated algebra in my work than what I was used to. If the question was phrased as a typical 'answer this question because it's on my assignment' then it's just a bad question. If there's context and so on, and background on what the person knows or has found by searching so far, then it's a good question at a slightly lower level than research frontier stuff. | |
| May 27, 2016 at 11:51 | comment | added | Neil Strickland | @KarlSchwede I think that the discussion at meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2399 indicates a consensus that questions asked by ~2nd year graduate students learning their field are still on topic. | |
| May 27, 2016 at 9:35 | comment | added | Najib Idrissi | @Gro-Tsen There are actually is such a way to mark duch questions, moderators can lock a question with the text "This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed. More info: FAQ." | |
| May 27, 2016 at 4:41 | comment | added | Karl Schwede | I think it used to be that reasonable questions asked by ~2nd year graduate students learning their field were on topic I don't think that's the case any more. I think there are a lot of reasons for this. Math stackexchange obviously created a new forum where those questions were appropriate. I think also there used to be more time before questions were closed. I think frequently it was that the question was not that good, because the user didn't know the right question to ask. But sometimes the answers were still great, because the people writing them knew what the right question was. | |
| May 26, 2016 at 21:34 | comment | added | Gro-Tsen | (contd.) Also, it's a serious problem for the standards to change with time considering that old posts remain active indefinitely (and can be edited, commented upon, and answered to, and thus revived; and, I imagine, closed, but this doesn't happen). If the change in standards is desired, then there should be a way to mark old posts as "archived for historical purposes, but no longer up to present standards" or something. | |
| May 26, 2016 at 21:28 | comment | added | Gro-Tsen | @KarlSchwede And I think this kind of crazily high standards explains why I have a number of colleagues who tell me they don't dare ask their questions on MathOverflow. If there is a genuine desire for a walled garden of this sort (keeping away the plebs who think that Gorenstein might be preserved by normalization!), then I'm not going to argue against it, but I wonder if it's really a conscious decision by the community or just a vicious circle that nobody really wants. | |
| May 26, 2016 at 19:48 | comment | added | Karl Schwede | I think the reason this was closed is because the standards for what is an acceptable question on mathoverflow are much higher than it used to be in 2011. | |
| May 26, 2016 at 16:39 | comment | added | Neil Strickland | I think that this question is on topic, and have voted to reopen. | |
| May 26, 2016 at 9:44 | history | asked | Gro-Tsen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |