FORWARDING Re: [math-fun] FYI: re New Yorker article on the Poincare conjecture, Pereleman, S.T. Yau, etc.
I was very courteously asked about whether it's OK to forward my recent post (below, with one more fact added). The answer is Sure! EXCEPT for one thing: Please do *not* include my name or e-address!!!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which brings to mind the following, mainly to Rich: Question: Does math-fun have a default guideline about forwarding a post, or is it currently on a case-by-case basis? Thanks, Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- original post follows: The article in the New Yorker by Sylvia Nasar and David Gruber < http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060828fa_fact2 > is apparently not the last word on the subject. Lawyers have now sent an 12-page letter < http://www.doctoryau.com/9.18.06.pdf > purporting to rebut a number of things cited in the article as fact. A blogger, Mark Liberman, Prof. in the U Penn CS and Linguistics depts. (with Erdos number = 3) posted the following comment: < http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003608.html#more >.
We don't have a "no forwarding" rule, except for the implicit one of requiring people to subscribe directly, with no "robotic reposting". The archive is private to the membership, but anyone can join. The contents should be treated as you would treat a letter from a friend: no publication without consent, but limited discussion with others is fine. (Big portions from the archive shouldn't wind up on your web page.) If you edit Math-Fun material to make a writeup or blog of some kind, please protect any internal email addresses. A math journalist once asked to join, but dropped it when I required poster consent for republication. The default guideline is "good judgment". We don't promise secrecy. The intro page for the mailing list says "We have over 100 subscribers, so don't expect much privacy." Our objective is discussion, as in "coffeehouse", and the good problems and puzzles can be expected to migrate elsewhere. We hope that appropriate credit follows the migration, but realize that good material travels faster than credit. Our discussions often benefit from list members forwarding questions to other experts for comment. Many list subscribers have been "recruited" from a forwarded email. The question "What is publication?" has become fuzzy, which is why good judgment is necessary. The New Yorker article seems likely to ignite a lot of essentially non-mathematical controversy, but a message simply listing a few web pointers seems innocent. Rich -----Original Message----- From: math-fun-bounces+rschroe=sandia.gov@mailman.xmission.com on behalf of Daniel Asimov Sent: Mon 10/2/2006 8:18 AM To: math-fun Subject: FORWARDING Re: [math-fun] FYI: re New Yorker article on the Poincare conjecture, Pereleman, S.T. Yau, etc. I was very courteously asked about whether it's OK to forward my recent post (below, with one more fact added). The answer is Sure! EXCEPT for one thing: Please do *not* include my name or e-address!!!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which brings to mind the following, mainly to Rich: Question: Does math-fun have a default guideline about forwarding a post, or is it currently on a case-by-case basis? Thanks, Dan <rest of Dan's note clipped>
participants (2)
-
Daniel Asimov -
Schroeppel, Richard