home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1 / NN_1993_1.iso / spool / sci / math / 18046 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1993-01-12  |  4.7 KB  |  94 lines
  1. Newsgroups: sci.math
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!austin.onu.edu!yeomans@austin.onu.edu
  3. From: yeomans@austin.onu.edu (Charles Yeomans)
  4. Subject: Re: Let's add some sci.math.* groups
  5. Sender: usenet@austin.onu.edu (Network News owner)
  6. Message-ID: <1993Jan12.204730.29896@austin.onu.edu>
  7. Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:47:30 GMT
  8. References: <1993Jan11.142229.23554@linus.mitre.org> <93011.190124U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>
  9. Nntp-Posting-Host: yeomans.onu.edu
  10. Organization: Ohio Northern University
  11. Lines: 81
  12.  
  13. In article <93011.190124U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U53644@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
  14. > 
  15. > Simple enough...........
  16. > 
  17. >         Continue maving sci.math for whatever postings don't fit in one of the
  18. > math subgroups (I'd suggest
  19. > 
  20. >           sci.math.applied          Theory of Differential Equations, Applied
  21.                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  22. This doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
  23. >                                     Probability, Integral Equations, etc. and
  24. >                                     
  25. > 
  26. >           sci.math.business         (Contrasting with technically oriented
  27. >                                     previous group), Operations Research,
  28. >                                     Actuarial Science, Financial Modeling,
  29. >                                     and other areas of application of
  30. >                                     Mathematics to business, government, etc.
  31. >                                     (Game theory,....)
  32. You don't consider Financial Modelling, for instance, to be technically
  33. oriented?  The examples you give certainly belong in the previous group, by
  34. your own definition.
  35. > 
  36. >                                     Why : Different audiences. Each group
  37. >                                     (for the most part) would just be wading
  38. >                                     through what the others are writing.
  39.  
  40. I have never read a group where this did not hold.
  41.  
  42. > 
  43. >         sci.math.teaching           This could include any "sci.math.undergrad"
  44. >                                     1. it allows usenet to be used as an
  45. >                                        educational tool
  46. >                                     2. it allows the prospective benificiaries
  47. >                                        of the techniques under discussion to
  48. >                                        give timely feedback.
  49. > 
  50. >         sci.math.recreational       self-explanatory. would include
  51. >                                     applications to the arts.
  52. > 
  53. >         sci.math.foundations        no, not logic. devoted to set theory and
  54. >                                     other efforts concerned with strenghthening
  55. >                                     the logical foundations of Mathematics
  56. >                                     (Measure theory, etc... the 'hairsplitting'
  57. >                                     that you hear PDE men grumbling darkly
  58. >                                     about during teas). Rigor as an art.
  59. >                                     (Point-set Topology, Category theory...)
  60. > 
  61. >         sci.math.geometry          Paradoxically, needed because of it's [sic]low
  62. >                                     traffic. This field (exclusive of
  63. >                                     algebraic and differential geometry),almost
  64. >                                     seems to be fading out - how many Geometry
  65. >                                     courses do you see listed lately ? A nice,
  66. >                                     clear, low noise level channel for
  67. >                                     communication among the ones left might
  68. >                                     help improve the health of the field.
  69. > 
  70. > 'Leftovers' : Analysis, Algebra, Algebraic Topology, Combinatorics, etc.
  71. >  More groups might be added as needed.
  72. > 
  73. >  Gain : less time spent sorting through articles of little interest to one.
  74. >  Of course, there is no law against reading more than one group.
  75. > 
  76. >  Definite suggestion : Moderated groups, and/or mailing lists, like electronic
  77. >  journals.
  78. > 
  79. > I think that the initial poster has a good idea - a little more order will make
  80. > reading these groups easier and more productive.
  81. > 
  82. I've seen it suggested before - use a kill file.  I don't because I read this
  83. group to hear what other people have to say about various math-related topics - 
  84. especially the non-professors who post; for me they are the most interesting,
  85. because I don't normally get to talk to such types.
  86. I don't like all of the threads, but who does?  Subdivision of mathematics
  87. itself is a bad thing; I don't see why sci.math should follow that detrimental
  88. trend.
  89. However, you (the original poster) doesn't need anyone's permission to start
  90. a request for a new newsgroup or two.  
  91.  
  92. Charles Yeomans
  93.  
  94.