3
$\begingroup$

According to the CSTheory.SE FAQ, it does, but there isn't anything in the Math.SE FAQ that specifically allows these questions.

Could the Math.SE FAQ be amended to correspond to the CSTheory.SE FAQ's assertion that such questions are on-topic?

Example: Subset sum, Pseudo-polynomial time dynamic programming solution?

$\endgroup$
21
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I don't think there is any problem with CS questions, but we generally do not like «tell me about X» questions. In particular, they are not questions. $\endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Commented Dec 12, 2011 at 22:38
  • $\begingroup$ @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez Thanks. I Googled the question, found a couple of good examples for the OP, and closed the question as "Off-Topic." In the meantime, could the Math.SE FAQ be clarified to more closely align with the CSTheory.SE FAQ? $\endgroup$
    – Robert Harvey
    Commented Dec 12, 2011 at 22:48
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ To more closed align with the CSTheory.SE FAQ in what aspect, specifically? $\endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Commented Dec 12, 2011 at 22:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The CSTheory.SE FAQ states that non-research-level Theoretical Computer Science questions should be directed at Math.SE. The Math.SE FAQ does not specifically address those kinds of questions. $\endgroup$
    – Robert Harvey
    Commented Dec 12, 2011 at 22:59
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ ...is that edit really necessary? I'd think "for all levels" was clear enough. And since people here have said $\text{Computer Science}\subseteq\text{Mathematics}$... $\endgroup$
    – J. M. ain't a mathematician
    Commented Dec 13, 2011 at 0:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @J.M.: $\subseteq$ or $\subset$? $\endgroup$
    – cardinal
    Commented Dec 13, 2011 at 1:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Mind you, this sentence in CSTheory.SE FAQ irritates me a bit, because basically it means that they treat Math.SE as a generic dump site. For example the coding theory questions that have been discussed in CSTheory.SE are IMVHO hardly at the research level. An advanced undergraduate/practicing engineer seems to be closer to the mark. Granted, coding theory is not really a mainstream CSTheory topic. Just saying. I think that the kind of question asked in the link would be off-topic here, and we should not welcome that kind of material here. $\endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Commented Dec 13, 2011 at 10:35
  • $\begingroup$ @cardinal: $\subset$ is ambiguous. Do you mean $\subseteq$ or $\subsetneq$? $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Dec 13, 2011 at 11:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Related: meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/1966/… $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Dec 13, 2011 at 12:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf, Consider the question (Q) asking whether a given symbol must be understood as $\subseteq$ or as $\subset$. I find unlikely that somebody asking (Q) would use $\subset$ for $\subseteq$. Only somebody using $\subset$ for $\subsetneq$ could ask (Q), don't you think? $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Commented Dec 13, 2011 at 13:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's awesome that we're discussing ambiguous alphabets depending on context in a computer science meta-thread. $\endgroup$
    – Unreasonable Sin
    Commented Dec 13, 2011 at 17:30
  • $\begingroup$ @UnreasonableSin: You're welcome. $\endgroup$
    – cardinal
    Commented Dec 13, 2011 at 18:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Didier: I'm not what you're trying to say here; I don't use $\subset$ at all, and I often pick on others who do. Mostly because this symbol is ambiguous. Also, I guess nonsensical sarcasm doesn't go across comments very well :-) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Dec 13, 2011 at 18:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf, I am trying nothing here and you see sarcasm where there is mainly puzzlement. Why do you pick on people who use $\subset$? Why did you see fit to pick on cardinal's comment? Since said comment was as unambiguous as can be, was it sarcasm from your part? (Just repeating the question of my first comment (which you did not answer), using another formulation.) $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Commented Dec 13, 2011 at 19:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila: Completely beside the point (as I did not intend to derail the discussion), but I find your comments on notation a tad peculiar. $\endgroup$
    – cardinal
    Commented Dec 14, 2011 at 2:10

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .