Re: sci.math.moderated Guidelines

pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@xxxxxxx> writes:
On Aug 18, 4:40�pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here's my notes on what I think would make good guidelines.
Please discuss. �I give an outline first and give my thoughts
below.

I. �Guidelines for posts:

1. �No spam.
2. �No venom.
3. �On topic.
4. �Banned topics.
5. �No Nym shifting.
6. �Ascii only
7. �No posing.
<snip>

I.3. �The topic is "math" and this includes kindergarten through
research, math ed, conference announcements, biographical info
about mathematicians, and probably some other things.

It should NOT, however, include the endless "Einstein
was wrong", "relativity is wrong" posts, even though
such posts may contain some purported mathematics and
even though physics and math are related.

Also, if one is going to discuss ALGORITHMS, do not
present CODE.

Disagree. However, if it is in code, it should be in a very
*human readable* language, with minimal non-human "punctuation"
and other artificialities. Looking at papers on algorithmics, most
algorithms are presented in a pseudocode that looks like a fucked
up non-ASCII version of pascal. That's just as unreadable as any
real computer language, and there's precisely no reason to prefer
it over them apart from some misplaced sense of tradition.

Phil
--
If GML was an infant, SGML is the bright youngster far exceeds
expectations and made its parents too proud, but XML is the
drug-addicted gang member who had committed his first murder
before he had sex, which was rape. -- Erik Naggum (1965-2009)
.

Quantcast