quasi
Posts:
9,079
Registered:
7/15/05
|
|
Re: Probability Pill
Posted:
Dec 31, 2012 1:02 AM
|
|
William Elliot wrote:
>quasi wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I meant _your_ source, where _you_ got the problem, not
>> >> the actual source.
>> >
>> >Email, if makes any difference for this group
>>
>> Fine, and in that case you could have introduced the problem
>> by saying something like ...
>>
>> In a private email, I was asked the following question ...
>>
>> ... question ...
>>
>> Of course you don't actually _have_ to reveal your source,
>> but by doing so, at least you dispel the false impression
>> that the problem is of your own creation.
>
>With that finally acceptable answer, did quo learn anything
>new that I hadn't already told you?
>
>> On the other hand, if someone (such as myself) asks you for
>> the nature of your source, it don't see why you would choose
>> to withhold that information.
>
>Why do you block your email address while others such as I,
>don't?
I prefer to remain anonymous.
But I try to attribute problems and solutions to their source,
to the extent that I'm aware of the source.
Thus, if I ask about an exercise from a text, I would quote or
paraphrase the problem, and identify the author, title,
edition, and page number.
If I get a problem from a competition, I would indicate the
competition name, year, and problem number (or as much of that
information as I know).
If I am relaying a problem from another user in another forum,
I would identify the forum and username of the person in that
forum who posed the problem.
If I am discussing an unsolved problem then, provided I'm
aware that it's unsolved, I would indicate that.
If it's my own question, I don't need to identify the source
since I regard that as the default assumption. Of course, it
will often turn out that such a question is actually a known
question, and that's fine, but if I know such a source in
advance, I think it's only fair (both to the reader and to the
source) that I attribute the problem to that source.
Now I'm not saying that everyone has to follow those guidelines
but in your case, there have been quite a few situations where,
in my opinion, omitting any hint of attribution was deceptive,
making it look like the problem was one that you'd thought up.
>My response was appropriate to the quality of your unacademic
>asking copied here, for your convenience, below.
From quasi@null.set Thu Dec 27 02:47:23 2012
>>>...> I suspect that the above question is not actually yours.
>>>...>
>>>...> If that's the case, what is the actual source?
>>>...>
>>>...> Is it from a poster in another forum? If so, why do you
>>>...> omit mention of the poster and the forum?
>>>...>
>>>...> Is it from a book or math contest?
>>>...>
>>>...> Why do you repeatedly post questions that are not your
>>>...> own without giving credit to the source?
I stand by the above.
I would have taken it back if it turned out the problem was
your own (but as I suspected, it wasn't).
quasi
|
|
