Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s

hessix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 122 posts

Re: HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s

#41

Post by BucketSort »

mkl wrote: post #24
usgroup wrote: post #10

This feels a bit overly specialised, and the average article is hard. I’m sure a maths researcher can handle it and all but it does seem rather taxing. I think for something like HN to be broadly interesting it needs volume and variety, because people’s interests are a long tail phenomena. I imagine that is probably true for maths too.

> I’m sure a maths researcher can handle it No, not at all. Each maths researcher will understand (and care about) only a fraction of these. Maths research (like most subjects) is broken into highly specialised subfields, and experts in one often cannot readily understand research in others. New research papers are the cutting edge of the field, pushing out the boundary between known maths and unknown maths, and this…

For programmers: It's like being a distributed systems engineer and being expected to just jump into some intricate problem of a physics engine. Sure you can "speak" the same language, but it would take you time to familiarize yourself with the concepts of physics engines ... and most of you would not expend the effort to do so if it is not applicable to your work/interests. There are certain common concepts across all mathematics, but it's like that in medicine, software, and any field that deals with complex topics.

Re: HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s

#43

Post by mmmmpancakes »

I don’t know how much discussion one hopes to generate by simply posting links to recent arxiv pre-prints. Posters don’t even seem to be giving a reason for posting them. It is very non-sequiter and unengaging. Honestly i would never use this.

A better post format:

Title: not the title of the paper (which will almost always sound super specific) but something more general

abstract: a brief description at a high level of the discussion the poster hopes to generate, i.e. why.

Probably they should all be text posts with some ability to add an external link.

Also, posting some blogs would probably fare better for general discussion than just papers.

Re: HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s

#44

Post by keldaris »

jowdones wrote: post #30
whunting wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree on search, it is now open for non users. Affiliation is to avoid content dilution. Any alternative ideas are welcome (and as you can see with search, implemented)

Idea: die in a fire. Really, go f yourself with your hardcore authoritarian censorship right from the beginning. HN is bad enough (and I bet you a month's salary they'll obliterate my post) but at least they allow SOME level of free expression. You on the other hand represent the most disgusting essence of human wickedness disguised as elitism.

By dispensing with even the pretense of elementary civility you've demonstrated exactly why some measure of censorship is often crucial.

Re: HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s

#47

Post by amelius »

xorand wrote: post #33

Who are you? I can't find any information about who made Hessix or who is Hessix.

It seems the whois information is protected by "WhoisGuard (tm)". That service seems to protect site owners against spammers, at the cost of taking away the trust that visitors can have in a website.

Re: HN-like math research discussion for Ph.D.s

#49

Post by philipov »

nilkn wrote: post #13
markkm wrote: post #12

The research mathematics community on the internet is fairly small, and a lot of them are over at MathOverflow, math.SE, and personal blogs. What does this site offer that would lure people away from them?

I imagine the main differentiator would be open-ended discussion that's not necessarily trying to answer a well-defined question (or any question at all for that matter). Stack Exchange and MathOverflow are both fairly bad at supporting this at best and openly hostile towards it at worst.

None of the articles on the front page have even a single comment.
Post reply on HN