-2
$\begingroup$

I posted a question , see

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1339824/how-to-find-the-next-number?noredirect=1#comment2724983_1339824

and it was immediately down voted and eventually closed.

Here is the thing, there IS an existing and valid tag, called

that states in the tag-excerpt and the tag-wiki

From a sample of small samples of mathematical objects, conjecture a common pattern to all of them, THIS includes "guess the next terms in the sequence", and also mentions to check the online directory of sequences ( I did).

So here it is, that description is literally exactly what my question was.

And it was closed, so should that tag be taken away? Because if using that tag and basically asking a question that is exactly what is described, and it is closed, then how is it valid?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The tag itself has been previously discussed here with inconclusive results. But it is commonly used as described in the tag-wiki, so you tagged your question correctly. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jun 27 '15 at 6:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Whether this type of questions is allowed was previously discussed here. (And probably in several other discussions.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jun 27 '15 at 6:31
  • $\begingroup$ On puzzling.SE a tag called number-sequence exists. So it might be worth considering asking your question there. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jun 27 '15 at 6:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ We also have tags physics and philosophy, it doesn't mean that anything related to physics or philosophy is on-topic here. We also need tags to categorize existing, off-topic questions. Using the fact that a tag exists to argue that your question is on-topic is not a valid argument. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jun 27 '15 at 7:09
  • $\begingroup$ FYI: The question is even deleted. $\endgroup$ – user99914 Jun 27 '15 at 7:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @najjb it seems to be a valid argument seeing as the tag describes exactly what the user had posted $\endgroup$ – Quality Jun 27 '15 at 9:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Quality Did you read my whole comment...? $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jun 27 '15 at 10:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes I did, and your whole argument only holds if you are willing to accept that the site includes tags that should never be used.. $\endgroup$ – Quality Jun 27 '15 at 10:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Quality Nope. If you have a mathematical question that has ties to physics (its motivation comes from physics, for example), then using the physics tag is fine. But the existence of the tag does not mean that every question related to physics is on-topic here. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jun 27 '15 at 11:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @najib I have a feeling you didn't even read the question by the user at all . The tag in question literally stated "questions of the form" and then continued to say exactly the type of question the user posted $\endgroup$ – Quality Jun 29 '15 at 2:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Najib, I understand perfectly what you are saying. I don't see how you can seriously not understand the point. Did you read what I wrote or not? How can you even disagree if you read it at all. The tag is not physics, it is a tag that DIRECTLY described WORD for WORD the exact type of problem he asked. By your logic, NO question can be used with that tag. $\endgroup$ – Quality Jun 29 '15 at 7:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ie, the tag says ( If you actually read it) [sic] "questions that are similar to given some random sequence of numbers, conjecture some pattern about them". Now, look at the question. It was exactly, given this sequence of numbers, conjecture a pattern about them. Do you understand this? I think it is not a matter of mathematical ability to understand this as you are obviously much superior in that manner, but I really don't see how you canont see this point of view $\endgroup$ – Quality Jun 29 '15 at 7:43
  • $\begingroup$ If this discussion is to turn into a shouting match, I'm not interested anymore. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jun 29 '15 at 7:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No thats okay, I did not mean to seem as such. I understand your point as well, I am just saying it seems that you really aren't paying attention to what I even wrote/ you did not address that point $\endgroup$ – Quality Jun 29 '15 at 8:11
11
$\begingroup$

I don't know why such a permissive summary was given for this tag. I typed in an extra line, pointing out that a question that asks to "guess the next number in the sequence" and gives no mathematical context will generally be closed quickly.

Meanwhile, I recommend http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Numbers-John-Conway/dp/038797993X which shows some legitimate mathematical questions of this type, and ways to solve them.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

There is an tag, and yet we close questions about algebra too - for the same reason, too: Your questions lacks context. It doesn't tell us where this sequence comes from, or what significance would be in knowing an answer. Just telling us, "...we could say that any number was next, but this is not what is expected." does not help us get an answer - and telling us "I have tried really anything" does not tell us what you tried (which could give us an idea of what form you expect an answer to take). OEIS and this answer basically cover the entire mathematical content of your question - refer to either one, but posting a new question is not productive and might as well be closed (possibly as a duplicate of any earlier one asking about any finite sequence with no clear origin)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This one is closed as "not about mathematics", not "lacking context". $\endgroup$ – user147263 Jun 26 '15 at 23:15
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @1999 Irrespective of the close reason, I think it could be on-topic were context added - even if this is a particular case where a lack of context also creates a lack of any mathematical content. $\endgroup$ – Milo Brandt Jun 26 '15 at 23:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .