In my opinion this post is not a research level topic but surprisingly it has been received 22 votes.

Is the linked post a research level question and appropriate for MO?

I think it is more appropriate for MSE. Of course, that question arises in the OP research work but this is not sufficient to be on topic on MO. Isn't?

| |
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ I posted the question; I have good experience with MO, and less so with math.SE. Some questions I encounter in my research feels like they would be trivial when asked to the right person (perhaps many questions are). I knew this question was easy to answer for a person with the right experience - and MO is where such people are. The resource mathcurve.com was a great reference, which I did not know about since before! $\endgroup$ – Per Alexandersson Sep 20 at 12:01
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ If this question came up in research and the researcher (who is a professional) didn't know how to answer it, then there's a priori a good chance it qualifies. I see nothing wrong with it. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Sep 21 at 2:45
  • $\begingroup$ @PerAlexandersson: Sorry if my question offended you, that was not my intend at all. I just wanted to gain some good experiences with MO. $\endgroup$ – C.F.G Sep 21 at 5:27
  • $\begingroup$ @ToddTrimble: What if OP did not mention this line? "This particular curve arises in some research I am working on at the moment, and it would be great if it perhaps connects to some classical area."? I also have no idea why this question has been received 22 votes. $\endgroup$ – C.F.G Sep 21 at 5:32
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @C.F.G No, your question is valid- I even upvoted your meta-question as I can see that it is not super clear that it belongs on MO (although IMHO, it does). $\endgroup$ – Per Alexandersson Sep 21 at 6:37
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @C.F.G Of course we do not know how many votes come from users outside MO. Since it was in the list of the hot network questions, it seems quite probable that also some users who are not MO regulars visited the question (and voted on it). $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Sep 21 at 8:22
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak: Thanks, completely reasonable argument. $\endgroup$ – C.F.G Sep 21 at 8:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ [Let's please not worry about the upvotes (which have now been mentioned three times, not counting this comment). Unless there's some suspected sockpuppetry (and there isn't), there's really nothing we can do about it. Maybe some upvoter will come by and explain.] -- C.F.G., that line had nothing to do with my assessment that it's okay here. I think Per explained it best in his opening comment. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Sep 21 at 10:06
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ This is why I’ve always preferred the phrasing “for professional mathematicians” to trying to parse what “research level” means. (With the usual caveats that graduate students are professional mathematicians, and that non-professionals are welcome provided that they remember that it’s aimed at professionals.) $\endgroup$ – Noah Snyder Sep 21 at 14:55
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Regarding @NoahSnyder's comment, which I agree completely with, here is another random example from today of a very established MO user asking a question that amounts to understanding row-echelon form of matrices: mathoverflow.net/questions/372200/…; and yet, it is quite plausible that this could come up in the course of your research, and if you haven't seen it before/didn't know the keywords to Google it might be hard to find the answer otherwise. $\endgroup$ – Sam Hopkins Sep 21 at 17:09
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Strong seconding of what Noah and Sam have said. I still recall a junior-at-the-time functional analyst on here being castigated by some users for asking a question that arose in K-theory of Cstar algebras, which could be answered by "Smith normal form" $\endgroup$ – Yemon Choi Sep 22 at 17:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .