It is about this question on periodic structures: my question

Currently I don't have any idea what is wrong with the question? It was totally rewritten by me and edited by other users, so now it corresponds the rules (imho). Further advices did not follow.

I don't search special attention here, but I don't want that it will be deleted. If I understand correctly, it will happen after some time, so there must be some concrete reason, why it cannot be reopened.

  • If it cannot be reopened, can you please migrate it to Physics SE Site?

Also if you know a good place (other than SE) for this particular topic, let me know.

Thanks for attention.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your question has not been closed as "off-topic", but as "unclear what you're asking". -- This means that in order to get your question reopened, you need to make clear what precisely you would like to know. Typical questions may have the form "Is it true that ...?", "Where can I find a proof of ... ?", etc. -- but rather not something not very clear like "I can't find closely related resources. Any help with that is appreciated.". Also, if a question is closed as "unclear" this often indicates that it is too long and / or hard to digest for a reader. $\endgroup$ – Stefan Kohl Mod Feb 23 '16 at 17:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StefanKohl My question is reference request and from my clarifications follows quite straight what structures I am interested in. Hence the question - does anyone know closely related source? $\endgroup$ – Mikhail V Feb 23 '16 at 17:52
  • $\begingroup$ @StefanKohl Sorry, but without clarifications the question has little sence, because it is not connected with an existent precise topic, so it needs a research backround, and this is written in rules for asking such questions. $\endgroup$ – Mikhail V Feb 23 '16 at 18:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The site MathOverflow is essentially for professionalized mathematics (i.e., research mathematics as practiced by professional mathematicians and mathematics PhD students), and as such it's difficult for me to see that your question is on-topic for this site. For example, parameters such as S and D do not appear to me to be precisely defined mathematical terms. But there were two votes to reopen (now aged away); perhaps those who voted that way could explain why they believe it's on-topic. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Mod Feb 24 '16 at 1:25
  • $\begingroup$ @ToddTrimble Dear Todd, I have never claimed that my question is very "on-topic" here. But let me ask you then: is topics such "constructional crystallography" (which is applied geometry) off topic? Is image analysis off-topic? I am not sure, so tell me please. $\endgroup$ – Mikhail V Feb 24 '16 at 11:14
  • $\begingroup$ @ToddTrimble Also let us consider this question. No offence, but this is imho not even a question, neither is it research-level. What we have here: OP presents one of endless possible tilings, and asks an absurd question: does it exist? If you have this tiling, then it obviously exists. And this is happily upvoted and answered. Apart that it is linked to wikipedia, what makes it an intersting or important question? Sorry, I didn't want to be emotional, but I don't understand the logic. $\endgroup$ – Mikhail V Feb 24 '16 at 11:14
  • $\begingroup$ @MikhailV As for your first question: there is a button 'tags' which you can click. There is a tag for image processing which is a robust field of applied mathematics; on a quick glance the questions with that tag look fully on-topic, so have a look yourself. I don't know what is meant by "constructional crystallography"; could that be materials science of some sort? We don't seem to support it here as far as I can tell. Perhaps I didn't convey the message well, but I am trying to keep an open mind about your question; besides 'geometry' (a deprecated tag), what area is your question? $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Mod Feb 24 '16 at 11:50
  • $\begingroup$ As for the question you linked to: the community judged it was on-topic, and I wouldn't gainsay that. It seems to be about the mathematical classification of tilings, where the terms used have precise mathematical meanings. I couldn't say exactly why others consider it interesting or important; I am vaguely aware that mathematical tilings are sometimes surprising (Marjorie Rice's discoveries, etc.) and there are unanswered questions out there. But to get back to your question: could you point me to a respectable applied mathematics paper where S and D are given precise meaning? $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Mod Feb 24 '16 at 12:00
  • $\begingroup$ @ToddTrimble Sorry that was my free interpretation of terms, to be more precise, it is "geometrical crystallography", as opposed to conventional crystallography, this means it deals with construction of structures without considering real physical crystalls, but rather creating them in form of images. There are known succesful examples, but it is quite new direction and, afaik, not recognized as official scientific topic. $\endgroup$ – Mikhail V Feb 24 '16 at 12:06
  • $\begingroup$ About S and D, I thought it was clear from my questions that I am just give it a letter and association meaning, how I understand it - e.g. "grade of order" is an intuitive term, like entropy. And that was my question, if someone could link me to literature where similar terms appear, in regard to stable structures and their analysis. So how can I point you to it? That is what I am searching for. $\endgroup$ – Mikhail V Feb 24 '16 at 12:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I see; thanks very much for clarifying (and your patience). $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Mod Feb 24 '16 at 12:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ToddTrimble Today I have luck - I have eventually found something which looks promising - Turing patterns So, what I have is something between the "spatial chaos" and initial bulbs on a grid. I think now I could do some improvements to the question, but I don't know when I'll manage to do this. Can the question be somehow delayed for deletion? $\endgroup$ – Mikhail V Feb 24 '16 at 20:01
  • $\begingroup$ On Feb 28, the question referred to has been auto-deleted. $\endgroup$ – Stefan Kohl Mod May 16 '16 at 20:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StefanKohl Ehm.. I've left the idea to remake it for now, but I have a local copy, so I have no further proposals. But I still could not make up my mind which science area it belongs. $\endgroup$ – Mikhail V May 16 '16 at 21:44

If I voted to close on questions, I would vote to close on this question, even after the edits. The primary reason is that I have to work at figuring out the question. A secondary reason is that there seems to be a lot of incidental information that does not seem to support the main specific question I think you want to ask. (This does not mean it is a bad question, or even poorly presented. It means for this forum the audience is unlikely to receive it well.) Let me suggest the following to make it more accessible and favorable for this forum.

Start with a brief summary: " I am looking at structures in the plane with some regularity. I am trying to define and study certain characteristics of these patterns, and my main questions are : what references cover material like what is presented below, and what search terms/synonyms can I use in doing more research into these structures and these particular characteristics? "

Now I am not sure that I understand the characteristics through your examples and presentation, so it might help to give examples that represent a scale for each parameter. Say 5 examples of increasing D value, with some words on why it is increasing. However, no one wants to read several paragraphs to understand what you might mean by D, so try to encapsulate it into two or three sentences, if you can.

Telling us what is not an answer (specifically your related but not an answer section) is good, but we need to know more of why they aren't answers.

I would like to see some motivation, perhaps near the beginning. If you are studying these patterns in the context of charge distribution, or growth of microbial colonies, or cellular automata, that would be good to know.

A version of this question that is more brief, more relevant, and more motivated might make a good MathOverflow question. Evem if the present version "follows the rules", that does not automatically make it a good or acceptable question.

Gerhard "Has More Advice On Meta" Paseman, 2016.02.23.

  • $\begingroup$ Many thanks! I will use your advices. $\endgroup$ – Mikhail V Feb 24 '16 at 11:41
  • $\begingroup$ If you ask about the context - there is no specific context. These are purely geometrical things. Historically this developed from my interest on reading effectivity - then I started to develop alphabets which have maximal possible glyph distinctiveness and best possible white/black balance. And somehow it came to these structures. $\endgroup$ – Mikhail V Feb 24 '16 at 22:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .