Live data from Hacker News

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

hessix.com

51–60 of 122 posts

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

#51
post #22

Search is hidden behind registration wall AND I was not allowed to register (without affiliation). You should open search or registration.

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)

> Affiliation is to avoid content dilution.

You don't any users, you have an incredibly tiny niche, and starting a new forum these days is already ultra hard.

You should be working on getting users at all costs, not planning for the glamorous problems you might have if your moonshot happens to land, like having too many math novices cluttering up the high brow academic discussion.

lol, c'mon.

You need to understand that right now your forum is about as enticing as installing vBulletin on localhost to talk to yourself, just without the arxiv.org bot.

I started a large forum over a decade ago when it was easier. I spent almost a year sockpuppeting with myself so the first users didn't arrive at an empty forum. And that was in a popular forum-faring niche.

I look at your forum and you couldn't even be bothered to write a single comment on launch day. What's the plan?

As for affiliation, make it optional. Affiliated users get a little icon next to their username.

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

#53
post #22

Search is hidden behind registration wall AND I was not allowed to register (without affiliation). You should open search or registration.

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)

[deleted]

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

#55
post #34
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mathematics has a problem that also crops up on the fringes of programming; if a genius creates something at the limits of their understanding it is typically very hard to follow. Academics as a whole doesn't really tackle the issue of taking knowledge and bedding it down into digestible form. Individually a lot of people do great work, but as a body they don't seem to see as that as their role. So far the solution i…

I think that you make some excellent points. I think we need to stop conflating maths and abstraction with genius and general intelligence: it's too important to be politicised. I also think we should assume that any healthy adult can learn to do maths well by virtue of nothing other than having a human brain. If the normal healthy adult does not do maths well then that should be treated as a pedagogical problem rath…

Better tools are also going to shift the frontier.

To use Neural Networks as a poor analogy. Given identical training data and different random starting weights you end up with different end results. Thus, even with identical potential at conception people would end up with different strengths naturally.

Better training clearly shifts the median, but when you start talking about populations of extreme outliers from a billon+ people that’s going to be meaningful. Especially as differences compound over time.

Currently their is a trickledown effect where useful techniques end up shifting the landscape. RSA encryption pushing little bits of what would otherwise be abstract number theory into a few high school classrooms etc.

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

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the means of determining affiliation, I wonder? I entered my email, which is .edu and it didn't like it.

It auto checks affiliation and PhD status from a limited list of universities. If there is no match it puts the registration temporarily on hold until I can quickly check myself

I see, thank you.

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

#58
Nice idea, +1 for LaTeX titles! But the registration system should be way more open, you're discriminating against many math PhD's who are no longer in academia.

I would have posted my paper there but I guess "@math.ohio-state.edu" isn't elite enough so I'll post it here and probably get more traction than all the papers on OP's entire site combined.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.2869.pdf "Infinite graphs in systematic biology, with an application to the species problem" (printed in Acta Biotheoretica). This paper is as fun as a barrel of monkeys. Its results are mind-blowing even though the math is approachable. By the time you finish the first section, you'll be thinking to yourself, "Charles Darwin should have been a computer scientist!"

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

#59
post #54

I've found MathOverflow [1] to be the best high-level math discussion forum out there right now. Many prominent mathematicians are regular posters, and I think the question-and-answer format suits mathematical discussion very well. [1] https://mathoverflow.net/

MO is definitely high level, but like all SO/SE, I've always found their format to be really restricting. Not everything can be phrased as an objective question. Sometimes the best stuff have come out of something like "I was thinking about xyz, here are some things I noticed, thoughts?" I've even had/seen actual questions closed on SO/SE sites closed because of reasons I think are pretty silly.

It's also just not meant for discussions; if there are more than a couple comment replies, they "move it to chat", which I've never used.

Specific forums or subreddits can often have good discussion, but often not as much traffic.

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

#60
post #59
post #54

I've found MathOverflow [1] to be the best high-level math discussion forum out there right now. Many prominent mathematicians are regular posters, and I think the question-and-answer format suits mathematical discussion very well. [1] https://mathoverflow.net/

MO is definitely high level, but like all SO/SE, I've always found their format to be really restricting. Not everything can be phrased as an objective question. Sometimes the best stuff have come out of something like "I was thinking about xyz, here are some things I noticed, thoughts?" I've even had/seen actual questions closed on SO/SE sites closed because of reasons I think are pretty silly. It's also just not me…

Mathoverflow doesn’t seem to suffer from so many issues as other SE sites. It doesn’t really get many low quality questions (those belong on math.SE instead), and far fewer people use the site so there is less aggressive moderation in general. It does still suffer a bit from questions being put on hold for annoying reasons but it does allow for big lists and refrence requests and such.

It’s true that there’s lots of discussion that is out of the scope of mathoverflow which doesn’t have a centralised place to go on the internet. Such discussions tend to live on blogs and forums and email lists and discussions at conferences

Post reply on HN