Incomplete math classification on this forum

[fresh_42]

Yes, but one could also discuss questions about ongoing research ...

... which already can be done. The usage of the A-level tag should make the difference. At least I don't see a bar.

Also, I think that there would still be enough people that could say something sensible.

Oh yes, I have no doubt that mathematical discussions are possible. And sometimes a different point of view can be useful. However, if I remember those discussions IRL, they have rarely been at the front lines in terms of technical details except when mathematicians who work in the same field met.

I agree, that these are questions on how the objective function "Target Group" should be stated.
To be honest, I don't feel to have the right to answer this. My opinion is mainly based upon the experiences of read posts, assuming it is intended.
Consequently I do not want to judge on this aspect.

 

[Demystifier]

There is a difference between calculus and analysis in English usage (considering the fact that there is calculus twice in the HW section)? I'm not sure I know the difference between the four.

Loosely speaking, calculus is a branch of analysis. A separate subforum for calculus is needed because calculus is used by a larger number of people, usually non-mathematicians who need to learn some math as a practical tool.

Apparently a lot of explanation needs to be done in the parenthesis.

Some of the parentheses can be omitted.

I knew topologists as well as geometers who would strongly object being seen as related.

I'm sure the number of people who see them related is much larger than the number of people who think that logic and set theory are related to probability and statistics.

Many users don't have a mathematical background, yet. They might find it difficult to find out the correct category ...

So are you suggesting to remove categories completely?

In my opinion the current categories are a good compromise on all these many objective functions of the optimization problem.

Perhaps they are not so bed, but it can always be better. At the very least, the minimal change one can make is to rename "Differential Geometry" subforum either as "Geometry" or "Differential and Algebraic Geometry".

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Perhaps they are not so bed, but it can always be better. At the very least, the minimal change one can make is to rename "Differential Geometry" subforum either as "Geometry" or "Differential and Algebraic Geometry".

@micromass

 

[fresh_42]

So are you suggesting to remove categories completely?

Not at all.

I'm sure the number of people who see them related is much larger than the number of people who think that logic and set theory are related to probability and statistics.

I do understand your point and I agree on it. However, I want to chip in that our pedagogues might be to blame, since our approach to probability theory, which I'd rather prefer to be called stochastic, are Venn diagrams and combinatorics, i.e. counting elements. I'm not defending this at all, au contraire, I think it actually is a surrender. But I'm pretty sure, I wasn't the only one who suffered under this approach and everybody at the end of school relates them - unfortunately.

 

[Demystifier]

I knew topologists as well as geometers who would strongly object being seen as related.

A question for everybody: Would you agree that point-set topology is closely related to analysis, and that algebraic topology and differential topology are closely related to geometry?

 

[fresh_42]

I agree. But what about knot theory? Simplicial complexes and buildings? Has Euclidean geometry topological aspects?
I fix the main difference in the word "meter". One doesn't need to measure in topology and on the other hand, what is geometry without angles and lengths? They both meet in algebra and group theory as well as in differential geometry, but there are vast fields aside of them.

 

[Demystifier]

But what about knot theory?

According to wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_topology#Branches_of_geometric_topology
it is a branch of geometric topology.

 

[fresh_42]

According to wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_topology#Branches_of_geometric_topology
it is a branch of geometric topology.

... which seems to me to be only an example on how categorizing does more harm than good.

 

[Spinnor]

Or just 2:44



(I know it's not the original, but I loved her hair ... and the memories.)

I hope she loved you just as much!

 

[S.G. Janssens]

I hope she loved you just as much!

Even I got to love fresh_42 a little, in spite of those instances where he is cearly wrong because he disagrees with me. Therefore, I am quite sure that he (still) makes Mrs. Harris blush.

 

[lavinia]

My experience is that most of the mathematics questions are elementary and often repeated. Given that, I no longer believe that it matters much how questions are classified. A general forum called Mathematics would do. Often questions are in the wrong forum anyway.

One problem may be that many people asking questions are Physics students. They often ask their math questions in one of the Physics forums. One might separate out a forum called "Mathematical Questions in Physics."

Many of the mathematical questions in the Physics forums are answered by Physics students whose knowledge of the mathematics is limited by their restricted attention to Physics. I have seen this in the Quantum Mechanics forum. Diverting some of these questions to mathematics students could be very helpful to the physics students. Or maybe the math guys should just answer more Physics questions.