Skip to main content
added 614 characters in body
Source Link
David White
  • 30.3k
  • 19
  • 26

EDIT 3: Here is a great example of a MathOverflow answer that consists of explaining why the question was a bad question. Like my answer, it received both upvotes and downvotes (as of this writing, 10 upvotes and 8 downvotes). Unlike my answer, it was not subjected to harassment or snarky comments, and was not deleted by the moderators. Oh, well. I guess it's not news to anyone that MO doesn't maintain consistency regarding the rules, or else the "breakthrough" question would have been closed as violating the rules of the FAQ that I linked to above.

EDIT 3: Here is a great example of a MathOverflow answer that consists of explaining why the question was a bad question. Like my answer, it received both upvotes and downvotes (as of this writing, 10 upvotes and 8 downvotes). Unlike my answer, it was not subjected to harassment or snarky comments, and was not deleted by the moderators. Oh, well. I guess it's not news to anyone that MO doesn't maintain consistency regarding the rules, or else the "breakthrough" question would have been closed as violating the rules of the FAQ that I linked to above.

added 1433 characters in body
Source Link
David White
  • 30.3k
  • 19
  • 26

EDIT 2: In the end, the moderators decided to delete my answer, then repost just the part about the Telescope Conjecture. So, it seems the decision is to ignore the rules on the help page when it comes to asking a clearly off-topic question, but then strictly enforce an unwritten rule that says not to comment on the appropriateness of a question when answering it. I suppose that if the moderators want to avoid a double-standard, they should also edit the five answers I linked above that commented on the appropriateness of their respective questions. The deletion of my answer also removed the following text, which is yet another reason why this "breakthrough" question should have never been asked, since it already has a whole article of Quanta devoted to answering the exact same thing:

Furthermore, there is already a yearly article "The Biggest Discoveries of the year" in Quanta Magazine. Here is the one for 2023. It already mentions the Ramsey theory result that is currently the top answer here. It also mentions results in combinatorics, number theory, aperiodic tiling, and physics (namely, the math governing boundaries of black holes).

Overall, I am displeased with how this was handled. I think it contributes to the problem of lack of clarity in what is considered on vs off-topic, and to the perception that the moderators act according to whims rather than according to the written rules of the site.

EDIT 2: In the end, the moderators decided to delete my answer, then repost just the part about the Telescope Conjecture. So, it seems the decision is to ignore the rules on the help page when it comes to asking a clearly off-topic question, but then strictly enforce an unwritten rule that says not to comment on the appropriateness of a question when answering it. I suppose that if the moderators want to avoid a double-standard, they should also edit the five answers I linked above that commented on the appropriateness of their respective questions. The deletion of my answer also removed the following text, which is yet another reason why this "breakthrough" question should have never been asked, since it already has a whole article of Quanta devoted to answering the exact same thing:

Furthermore, there is already a yearly article "The Biggest Discoveries of the year" in Quanta Magazine. Here is the one for 2023. It already mentions the Ramsey theory result that is currently the top answer here. It also mentions results in combinatorics, number theory, aperiodic tiling, and physics (namely, the math governing boundaries of black holes).

Overall, I am displeased with how this was handled. I think it contributes to the problem of lack of clarity in what is considered on vs off-topic, and to the perception that the moderators act according to whims rather than according to the written rules of the site.

added 42 characters in body
Source Link
David White
  • 30.3k
  • 19
  • 26

https://mathoverflow.net/a/56229/11540

I am sure there are many more examples, but I don't want to spend tons of time cataloging them all.

I am sure there are many more examples, but I don't want to spend tons of time cataloging them all.

https://mathoverflow.net/a/56229/11540

I am sure there are many more examples, but I don't want to spend tons of time cataloging them all.

added 408 characters in body
Source Link
David White
  • 30.3k
  • 19
  • 26
Loading
added 547 characters in body
Source Link
David White
  • 30.3k
  • 19
  • 26
Loading
added 438 characters in body
Source Link
David White
  • 30.3k
  • 19
  • 26
Loading
Source Link
David White
  • 30.3k
  • 19
  • 26
Loading