Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Rules of etiquette on this newsgroup
Replies:
11
Last Post:
Mar 20, 2013 9:50 AM



Paul
Posts:
780
Registered:
7/12/10


Rules of etiquette on this newsgroup
Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 12:08 PM


I'm genuinely a bit confused about the rules of etiquette on this newsgroup. A few times, people have criticised my etiquette, and such criticisms have nearly always been correct.
But on a recent thread, David Ullrich has been obviously obnoxious but nobody has bothered to criticise him. Is this a situation of sycophancy that no one wants to criticise a credentialed mathematician? Or is it that he gets the right to say what he wants because he's earned the right by making a lot of valuable contributions.
Here is an abbreviated account of how the thread went. Notes in square brackets.
[QUOTE BY MYSELF] >Maths texts and lectures often refer to observations as being "easy to check", "trivial" or "obvious." It would seem to me that such phrases (at least sometimes) risk the consequence that students will find difficulty in checking such "easy" results, have their confidence thereby undermined and thereby have their mathematical education impaired. I'm asking in this post whether this is a concern. Perhaps the answer is different depending on the level of the students, and my guess is that this concern is more valid for undergraduates. (I would doubt that it would bother a wellknown elite mathematician if he or she struggled to verify a fact that the seminar speaker insisted was "obvious.") [END OF QUOTE BY MYSELF]
[QUOTE BY ULLRICH. This is based on a simple misrembering on his part. I never did ask a similar question before]
Do you have any reason to think the answers are going to be different from the last time you asked this question? [END OF QUOTE BY ULLRICH]
[QUOTE BY MYSELF EXPLAINING WHY ULLRICH WAS WRONG] > I don't remember asking this question. I did ask about the use of the word "surprise" in mathematics. >Although this question is related, surely I shouldn't be accused of asking exactly the same question twice. [END OF QUOTE BY MYSELF]
[QUOTE BY ULLRICH WHERE HE USES SARCASM TO TRY AND COVER UP HIS MISTAKE. Oddly, no one besides myself feels moved to criticise him.]
Sorry. The question is indeed related. So closely related that, if I recall correctly, my reply to your question about the word "surprise" addressed instead the use of words like "clearly" and "trivially". Hence my confusion.
[My own note. It makes no sense whatsoever to use his own previous reply as evidence that my two questions were "so closely related". They weren't closely related].
When you make a post asking about use of the word "eviidently" please make sure to point out that it's a new question. Thanks.
[END OF QUOTE BY ULLRICH]



