From: yeomans@austin.onu.edu (Charles Yeomans)
Subject: Re: Let's add some sci.math.* groups
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:47:30 GMT
Organization: Ohio Northern University

In article <93011.190124U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U53644@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
> 
> Simple enough...........
> 
>         Continue maving sci.math for whatever postings don't fit in one of the
> math subgroups (I'd suggest
> 
>           sci.math.applied          Theory of Differential Equations, Applied
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
>                                     Probability, Integral Equations, etc. and
>                                     
> 
>           sci.math.business         (Contrasting with technically oriented
>                                     previous group), Operations Research,
>                                     Actuarial Science, Financial Modeling,
>                                     and other areas of application of
>                                     Mathematics to business, government, etc.
>                                     (Game theory,....)
You don't consider Financial Modelling, for instance, to be technically
oriented?  The examples you give certainly belong in the previous group, by
your own definition.
> 
>                                     Why : Different audiences. Each group
>                                     (for the most part) would just be wading
>                                     through what the others are writing.

I have never read a group where this did not hold.

> 
>         sci.math.teaching           This could include any "sci.math.undergrad"
>                                     1. it allows usenet to be used as an
>                                        educational tool
>                                     2. it allows the prospective benificiaries
>                                        of the techniques under discussion to
>                                        give timely feedback.
> 
>         sci.math.recreational       self-explanatory. would include
>                                     applications to the arts.
> 
>         sci.math.foundations        no, not logic. devoted to set theory and
>                                     other efforts concerned with strenghthening
>                                     the logical foundations of Mathematics
>                                     (Measure theory, etc... the 'hairsplitting'
>                                     that you hear PDE men grumbling darkly
>                                     about during teas). Rigor as an art.
>                                     (Point-set Topology, Category theory...)
> 
>         sci.math.geometry          Paradoxically, needed because of it's [sic]low
>                                     traffic. This field (exclusive of
>                                     algebraic and differential geometry),almost
>                                     seems to be fading out - how many Geometry
>                                     courses do you see listed lately ? A nice,
>                                     clear, low noise level channel for
>                                     communication among the ones left might
>                                     help improve the health of the field.
> 
> 'Leftovers' : Analysis, Algebra, Algebraic Topology, Combinatorics, etc.
>  More groups might be added as needed.
> 
>  Gain : less time spent sorting through articles of little interest to one.
>  Of course, there is no law against reading more than one group.
> 
>  Definite suggestion : Moderated groups, and/or mailing lists, like electronic
>  journals.
> 
> I think that the initial poster has a good idea - a little more order will make
> reading these groups easier and more productive.
> 
I've seen it suggested before - use a kill file.  I don't because I read this
group to hear what other people have to say about various math-related topics - 
especially the non-professors who post; for me they are the most interesting,
because I don't normally get to talk to such types.
I don't like all of the threads, but who does?  Subdivision of mathematics
itself is a bad thing; I don't see why sci.math should follow that detrimental
trend.
However, you (the original poster) doesn't need anyone's permission to start
a request for a new newsgroup or two.  

Charles Yeomans

Newsgroups: sci.math