Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    Please consider reopening:

    Not especially famous, long-open problems which higher mathematics beginners can understand [closed]

    The main argument for closing was: "I think for the MOMENT we have enough active open problem lists..."
    So time passed, it seems now there are no active "problems lists".

    I think the question is great one.
    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2013

    Since this was my point, and it seems true we did not see much of such lists as of late, I voted to reopen.

    Perhaps the comments discussing open/close last July on the question could be removed (globally) in the process.

    (Please do however not come back to my recent reopen vote offer somewhere else too close in time, now. :-) )

    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2013

    I deleted my old comments, as they now lack context and are obsolete. Not to completely destroy the conversation a "back-up" copy. (Timestamps should allow to get the correct order.)

    I think for the moment we have enough active open problem lists, as there is also the one of alvarezpaiva. Yes, they all have different emphasize, still. Vote to close. – quid Jul 2 at 18:39

    @Alexander Chervov: I am not completely sure what you mean by long playing; however the typical life-cycle of such questions is that there is often a peak of activity at the start and then they return form time to time with varying delays and varying strengths but it is sort of a damped process. I think it makes sense to wait until this peak activity for the other questions essentially faded away. Or to put it differelntly I think some of the answers to alvarezpaiva's question would fit here (eg, normal numbers), and it is fine to repeat them eventually, but just now it feels pointless. – quid Jul 2 at 19:45

    @David Feldman: True you do not first meet decimal rep at univ. but perhaps it is the first time where you could discuss in a not too handwaving way the asypmt equality of frequency counts of patterns of digits. But it was also just one quickly selcted ex. there are others like Artin's conjecture perhaps. Regarding the point in you second comment: well, it goes without saying you do as you like, but IMHO it would be a good precendent if 'we' would agree to a compromise solution like delaying this question, as opposed to the more confrontational scenario to see whether the q.'survives' now. – quid Jul 2 at 21:03

    @Steven Gubkin and Alexander Chevrov: yes I would be in favour of having this question at a later poitn. Why the strong action of closing. This is mainly practical. As soon as answers would be present things get more complicated. So in particular in this case I think it is actually better to close first and discuss later. We can always reopen and even undeleted. It is not like closing is irreversible. (This close first discuss later is not always me philosophy but in this case I think it is justified.) – quid Jul 2 at 21:08

    Let me follow quid

    This question is very natural, e.g. it also came to my mind and I think to many others, but I was somewhat "afraid to ask". I do not agree that "not the right moment" is good reason to close, such questions are long playing. – Alexander Chervov Jul 2 at 19:24

    @quid honestly speaking I would also think that it would be better to ask this question later, when "pair-quest will fade", but I do not think it is reason for such a strong action as closing. – Alexander Chervov Jul 2 at 20:46