445:. Once upon a time I heard some interesting music on public radio, and I wanted to find out what it was so I could buy it on CD. So I sent an e-mail to my local public radio station, asking, "What was the name of the song that was played at such-and-so time on this date?" The reply began, "That piece of music is not a 'song,' because a song is properly a musical composition with a singing part. The music you heard would properly be called an 'instrumental work,'" or something like that. I was irritated and a bit insulted because whoever replied to me came off as a smug, superior elitist who corrected me on a stupid and irrelevant technical point that I wasn't interested in anyway.
352:
puzzles, whereas many mathematicians on the mathematics reference desk may not be experienced; much of the mathematics behind sudoku is common sense written in a mathematical language (i.e. not much mathematical intelligence (but rather mathematical terminology) in sudoku) (the point is that even if a mathematician was experienced with sudoku, he/she would have to describe his/her reasoning in a mathematical language; laymen can explain techniques in a laymen language since with experience, they will unknowingly know the mathematics behind sudoku. Thus the laymen would be the most appropriate people to answer this question.). --
124:. I agree that my number theory is basic compared to some of the editor. Although I have studied both elementary number theory and analytical number theory, I never enjoyed it and never studied it beyond the mandatory courses. The flavour of the help desk is very analysis/number theory orientated. I am a differential geometer! Granted, my question about the commutativity of composition showed a lack of thought. But my question on the commutativity of addition was a good one: it stimulated some very interesting discussion with different opinions. There is a proverb that says something along the lines of "
468:
31:
449:
followed by some links for "real math" that led to a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo I couldn't understand, I would feel the same way. The implication, whether you intended it or not, is that the questioner's idea of "math" is foolish, childish, or wrong, and "real math" is limited to the kinds of things studied in graduate school and beyond by intelligent, highly educated people such as yourself. Can you see how this might be insulting? ā
448:
Now, if I were in the place of the person who asked for resources for "subtraction, addition, multiplication, and division in decimal, fraction, and other section of maths," and the first response was "Subtraction, addition, multiplication and division in their basic sense do not constitute 'math',"
351:
Dr. Dec pointed out that article in response to my comment that "arranging numbers in a 9x9 grid has nothing to do with mathematics". I then asserted that it nonetheless would be more appropriate for the miscellaneous reference desk since people there would be more experienced with solving sudoku
372:
I just have no idea what point you're trying to make, and I'd be grateful if you could throw some light on it. The only thing I can discern at the moment is some kind of academic snobbery, but there must
128:" I think this applies to the commutativity of addition question. My background is more towards the applied side of things and I don't really know many technical results about
311:
Hi. I find I canāt let this go, because Iām mystified by your responses, but continuing the discussion on the Ref Desk itself would not be appropriate.
419:
No worries (as you
Australians would say). Thanks for being polite, but if you still have any comments, please feel free to make a note of them here. --
496:
59:
442:
484:
425:
387:
358:
328:
47:
17:
126:
A man that asks a question feels stupid for a minute, but a man that doesn't ask a question remains stupid for a lifetime.
374:
322:
for the miscellaneous reference desk (advice for the OP which may provide him with a broader range of responses). --
475:
38:
420:
382:
353:
323:
381:
No academic snobbery; if you look at my past contributions you will know that I am not that sort of person. --
289:
232:
189:
144:
97:
82:
75:
253:", it's quite the opposite. A new editor might not be familiar with Knowledge. Upon reading a post signed "
273:" The only reason I have a signature different to my account user name is because I am also the holder of
347:. That, like it or not, is a denial - of a statement that nobody ever made; but a denial nonetheless.
340:
369:
Then, when I wonder what this denial is about, you deny making such a denial. That's another denial.
282:
225:
182:
137:
90:
85:. I have made a full reply, addressing each of your points. I hope that you will find this helpful.
458:
430:
413:
392:
363:
333:
314:
First, you say that questions about solving Sudoku puzzles don't belong on the
Mathematics desk.
300:
266:
243:
200:
155:
108:
441:
PST, please let me tell you a story, the moral of which I feel is applicable to your comments at
406:
274:
217:
454:
129:
261:" in the search box and end up going to someone other than the person signing his posts "
174:
399:
271:
Impersonating another editor by using his or her username or signature is forbidden.
171:
of your and thought I might offer some advice. The standard form is ]<nowiki: -->
483:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
450:
251:
Do you think that it would cause inconvenience to other editors, perhaps?
345:"I would not call someone who can solve sudoku puzzles a mathematician"
339:
Then, when it's pointed out that there's a rather detailed article on
277:
and have a divert in place from that user to my own user space.
462:
25:
443:
Knowledge:Reference desk/Mathematics#math lessons website
318:
I never said that; I said that such questions would be
212:
167:
120:
8:
165:Just a quick note about Wikilinks. I saw
481:Do not edit the contents of this page.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
377:be a better explanation than that.
7:
437:Comments on the math reference desk
24:
466:
172:, so for example <nowiki: -->
29:
18:User talk:Point-set topologist
1:
459:03:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
431:01:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
414:19:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
393:01:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
364:01:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
334:01:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
301:14:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
244:12:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
201:12:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
156:10:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
109:22:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
522:
216:, I would ask you to read
132:and the like; so I asked!
343:, you backtrack and say
249:As per your question "
177:and links to WP:AIAV.
479:of past discussions.
341:Mathematics of Sudoku
42:of past discussions.
269:clearly says that "
114:Reply to your reply
509:
508:
491:
490:
485:current talk page
257:" he might type "
72:
71:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
513:
505:
493:
492:
470:
469:
463:
428:
423:
411:
404:
390:
385:
361:
356:
331:
326:
320:more appropriate
299:
298:
295:
292:
285:
281:
242:
241:
238:
235:
228:
224:
215:
210:In reference to
199:
198:
195:
192:
185:
181:
175:anti-vandal page
170:
154:
153:
150:
147:
140:
136:
123:
107:
106:
103:
100:
93:
89:
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
521:
520:
516:
515:
514:
512:
511:
510:
501:
467:
439:
426:
421:
409:... speak! ...
407:
400:
388:
383:
359:
354:
329:
324:
309:
296:
290:
287:
283:
279:
278:
239:
233:
230:
226:
222:
221:
211:
208:
196:
190:
187:
183:
179:
178:
173:] comes out as
166:
163:
151:
145:
142:
138:
134:
133:
130:metamathematics
119:
116:
104:
98:
95:
91:
87:
86:
79:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
519:
517:
507:
506:
499:
489:
488:
471:
438:
435:
434:
433:
396:
395:
367:
366:
337:
336:
308:
305:
304:
303:
207:
204:
162:
159:
115:
112:
81:Thank you for
78:
73:
70:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
518:
504:
500:
498:
495:
494:
486:
482:
478:
477:
472:
465:
464:
461:
460:
456:
452:
446:
444:
436:
432:
429:
424:
418:
417:
416:
415:
412:
410:
405:
403:
398:Cheers. --
394:
391:
386:
380:
379:
378:
376:
370:
365:
362:
357:
350:
349:
348:
346:
342:
335:
332:
327:
321:
317:
316:
315:
312:
306:
302:
293:
286:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
247:
246:
245:
236:
229:
219:
214:
206:Wiki-hounding
205:
203:
202:
193:
186:
176:
169:
160:
158:
157:
148:
141:
131:
127:
122:
121:your comments
113:
111:
110:
101:
94:
84:
83:your comments
77:
76:Your comments
74:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
502:
480:
474:
447:
440:
408:
401:
397:
371:
368:
344:
338:
319:
313:
310:
270:
267:This section
262:
258:
254:
250:
218:this section
209:
164:
125:
117:
80:
65:
43:
37:
473:This is an
275:user:Dr Dec
118:Thanks for
36:This is an
402:Jack of Oz
503:ArchiveĀ 2
497:ArchiveĀ 1
213:this edit
168:this post
161:Wikilinks
66:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
259:user:pma
476:archive
39:archive
375:surely
307:Sudoku
284:Dr Dec
227:Dr Dec
184:Dr Dec
139:Dr Dec
92:Dr Dec
451:Bkell
16:<
455:talk
291:Talk
234:Talk
191:Talk
146:Talk
99:Talk
265:".
263:pma
255:pma
457:)
422:PS
384:PS
355:PS
325:PS
297:~~
280:~~
240:~~
223:~~
220:.
197:~~
180:~~
152:~~
135:~~
105:~~
88:~~
487:.
453:(
427:T
389:T
360:T
330:T
294:)
288:(
237:)
231:(
194:)
188:(
149:)
143:(
102:)
96:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.