-9
$\begingroup$

When posting a question about ongoing research on non-classical logic, I noticed that other site users quickly tried to mute it, accusing me of not having the necessary background. They could easily be disproved by taking into account my university achievements (I'm currently just before graduation, and I would already be graduated if I hadn't switched the university for personal reasons).

It's obvious that they just disliked someone researching the constructive strain of logic instead of the classical logic which has been somewhat more successful.

So, I suggest that the community topic reflects this. New users should be made aware that research-level questions are only permitted if the research matches the topics the older participants are comfortable with.

I cannot show an example since they already deleted my post. I couldn't even move it to another site if I found one which permits non-classical logic research.

Edit: The deleted post has been made viewable again: question about non-classical logic

Even though one of the commenters pointed out some perceived similarity to modal logic, I cannot edit the question in order to make the difference more clear.

The bottom line being: I might have worded my question better, and made the motivation more clear, but I can't do so anymore because a few people disliked the research. This should not happen to new users, and it can be prevented by those researchers specifying there preferences about permissible research in the site topic.

$\endgroup$
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ "It's obvious that they just disliked someone researching the constructive strain of logic instead of the classical logic which has been somewhat more successful." What's obvious is that you haven't been here long, and haven't bothered to look around to see how much discussion of constructive logic there has been here. "New users should be made aware that research-level questions are only permitted if the research matches the topics the older participants are comfortable with." You've been here for two days. You know nothing of what's permitted here. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jan 26 at 11:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerry Myerson: The content on MO can be read without being registered. You have no way to verify your obviously false statement about how long I have been watching the site. Therefore, I kindly ask you to stop your defamation campaign. $\endgroup$ – ternary Jan 27 at 10:40
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, ternary, by assuming that your ignorance about the site was due to the recency of your acquaintance with it. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jan 27 at 11:17
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ ""It's obvious that they just disliked someone researching the constructive strain of logic instead of the classical logic which has been somewhat more successful." Given that one of the people who discussed the question in comments is a logician who has worked extensively in non-classical settings, I think your inferences may be wide of the mark $\endgroup$ – Yemon Choi Jan 27 at 12:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ My reading is that several users thought your question was more appropriate for MathStackexchange, and perhaps also thought that your level of knowledge/experience in the subject meant the question should be dealt with at MSE rather than on MO (where one might expect people working on e.g. homotopy type theory to pose questions at a level they expect others working in that area to understand). I suggest you ask your question on MSE anyway, regardless of whether the question should or should not have been deleted on MO $\endgroup$ – Yemon Choi Jan 27 at 12:45
  • $\begingroup$ @YemonChoi: You might want to take into account that those who tried to mute the discussion by voting for deletion did not overlap with those who engaged in the discussion. The latter actually helped rephrasing the question to make it better understandable for more researchers, although I might add that the rephrasing efforts have been sabotaged by those who voted for deletion. This is a technical issue of the site, I guess, since it could be easily avoided by enforcing participation in the discussion before deletion. Furthermore, I want to add that the help center says that questions which... $\endgroup$ – ternary Jan 27 at 15:06
  • $\begingroup$ ...aren't reworded to match the site topic will be deleted after a few days. The fact that it has been deleted before a few days had elapsed proves that it was not so much about helping new participants to match the site topic, but more about muting unwanted research. $\endgroup$ – ternary Jan 27 at 15:08
  • $\begingroup$ @YemonChoi: I might consider adding the question to MSE, too. But my reading of the site topics were that MSE is more about questions that lie solely inside what is already fully researched. My question isn't, as it came up while working on a research paper which is supposed to extend upon what is currently known to be achievable within the formal treatment of cryptography. $\endgroup$ – ternary Jan 27 at 15:10
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson: My ignorance about the site policy of muting unwanted research is due to it not being specified in the site topic. Even after participating actively on a site for years, I would expect to either be able to pose a question which is covered by the site topic, or the site topic to be adapted accordingly. $\endgroup$ – ternary Jan 27 at 15:12
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I'm sorry, but the claim "It's obvious that they just disliked someone researching the constructive strain of logic instead of the classical logic" is simply false. (Note: I was one of the commenters who defended, at least to a small extent, your question; I also voted to close it.) The fact is that what you asked is, as far as I can tell, a question about basic aspects of non-classical logic: certainly interesting, and quite possibly research-relevant, but not really appropriate for MO (at least, as it stands). Your inference of malice is simply unjustified. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Jan 27 at 17:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In particular, some randomly-selected examples of well-received questions on nonclassical logic which use the "logic" tag include: mathoverflow.net/questions/164694/…, mathoverflow.net/questions/110492/…, mathoverflow.net/questions/96914/…, mathoverflow.net/questions/49775/radix-notation-and-toposes, ... $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Jan 27 at 18:02
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ You may argue that your question was deleted inappropriately quickly. (Personally I don't feel strongly one way or the other.) But that's a far cry from accusations of malice. (Also, contra the end of this question you should still be able to edit your question - you could then post to this thread and ask whether it's appropriate in its new form. Although to be honest I don't get the sense from the question that there is a well-formed research question there yet (contd) $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Jan 27 at 18:04
  • $\begingroup$ which is why I suggested MSE.) $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Jan 27 at 18:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What puzzles me is: why was the question deleted? I can understand closing it, but I don't see a reason why it deserves deletion. Any of the users who voted to delete it would like to elaborate? $\endgroup$ – Federico Poloni Jan 27 at 20:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you know that there are 129 questions on MO with the tag, constructive-mathematics? mathoverflow.net/questions/tagged/… $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jan 27 at 21:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .