CURED

@Sahaj (1) It isn't about "showing effort". It is about placing the problem in some kind of context. "I used a computer to verify this up to [n]" is not very interesting or useful context (IMO). I would rather know why anyone should care about the question. In what context does the question arise? What value does an answer have? etc.

@XanderHenderson There are countless high-rep offenders, for which no escalation in suspension occurs. That bothers me greatly, given strict escalation in length of suspension given to a few. If you want me to name names, who have frequently been suspended for one week only, please create a private chat, and invite me to it. @BillDubuque correctly expresses the very real paucity in enforcing EoQS, which you (et al.) initialized in 2020.

please close/downvote/delete - the super high rep users keep answering everything , whether it ha s context or not , whether it is about a famous open conjecture or not. Terrible !

@XanderHenderson OP tagged it as an SV, and OP's question is "Does my proof make it clear...." and the proof is a rephrasing of a proof from another thread (so a dupe), etc. There are many reasons why it is off-topic.

Dv/D very unclear, dupe, with high rep cherry picking (by frequent offender), nothing novel.

So (1) we are aware of the backlog, and (2) we will get to it, but please be aware that it is going to take a little time.

@XanderHenderson It's part of a much larger problem - that many of those who are caught up in the rep game can't believe that there are others who couldn't care less about it. They view every action through gamified glasses. Please let us teach mathematics unecumbered by such puerile matters.

A simple "Hey, heads up, I answered this question. I think it is a good question and should be reopened" immediately dispels a lot questions about someone's motivations. In the end, I think that this is more likely to lead to happy outcomes for everyone.

And I really didn't appreciate the implication that I might not "seriously believe" what I am saying, and am therefore commenting on bad faith.

So, while you are correct that it is not a "rule", I think that your assertion that this recommendation is something "that some users attempt to force on others" goes too far.

@BillDubuque I'm not sure what "gamification" has to do with this. There is a general consensus that one should disclose affiliations one has with a post (see, for example, math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/34447, where the post simply asks that people explain if they have affiliations with the question).

@Jakobian Disclosing "affiliation" is not a "rule" but only a recommendation that some users attempt to force on others. Not to mention that it is a waste of time stating what is completely obvious to anyone who spends the proper time evaluating such requests. Gamification is the root of all evil on this platform. We should strive to ignore it - not over-emphasize it.

In any event, I have explained the actions I took and cited the policy which I believe justifies those actions. I have done this in my capacity as a moderator. This is no longer an appropriate venue to debate the policy. You can either accept what I have said, or you can take it up on Meta.

@Peter I honestly have no idea what I have done to offend you, but these continued cryptic comments are not productive. If your don't want to participate, don't. If you want to participate, please do. There is no reason to preface every comment with aggrievement.

C/D PSQ and dupe featuring a diamond-mod answer that duplicates answers half-hour prior, sigh. Nothing novel.

@amWhy The still deleted comment is not simply a request that another user explain themselves. The deleted comment also accuses another user of being argumentative. On balance, I am disinclined to restore your comment, nor the other three or four comments which I left deleted.

@Jakobian When those "normal discussions" dissolve into name calling and bickering about issues which have been discussed to death both here and in meta, yes. When those "normal discussions" attract flags and comments from others, yes.

C above pure PSQ, twice reopened, needs only 1 close vote.

This room is now twelve years old. Happy anniversary!

@ТymaGaidash Not a wise decision by some diamond mod since there is now no signal to users that such PSQs are off-topic and should not be answered. Not to mention that the answerer - who continually ignores EOQS policy - has been rewarded with ~150 rep. Is there any hope for site quality when nothing can be done to stop such policy violations.

C PSQ with high-rep cherry picking

C Proof-verification question where the proof is obviously not correct. I think the attempted proof is so far from rigorous that it has no worth being on this site.

I was toying with the idea that the egregiously duplicated solutions should be deleted and the post edited to emphasize the user's interest in disproving the given statement.

It's lane enough that I can't even. This post is seemingly an easy to find duplicate question in which the OP has an approach that won't work. Instead of addressing the approach that won't work, two users opted to post solutions which appear on the duplicates and promptly reaped copious upvotes. Now that the solutions have made it de-facto duplciation, do we just close as a dupe?

@Srini which point? You're asking me to read whole of it and form opinion on all of the points?

@SineoftheTime Yes, the edit differs from the OP's intention. However, this is an old post and had since attracted lots of attention and answers, and I don't think a post that refused several methods do any good, in terms of exposition of knowledge. All methods should be put in the same places, and future users should be directed to one post where all the methods are present.

@JyrkiLahtonen Indeed, let me do several edits.

If you have nothing positive to add, is it necessary to break your silence?

@Peter Is it really necessary to so rudely express your displeasure at the reopening to the person who posted the question, and is asking for help?

@ТymaGaidash EC are the initials of probably the most prolific numerologist on this site, cf. here. Though that user is suspended for a decade, new accounts continuously arise advertising "EC primes" (likely sockpuppets as on MO). It is unfortunate that a very active user has encouraged such numerology (matters like these led to the downfall of sci.math)

C1

@Peter It was suggested that you posted the same question in here four times. Please don't do this. Once or twice is fine, but if, after posting the question a couple of times, it remains open, you should take that as representative of the opinion of users of this room. It starts to look like you have an axe to grind.

@Ѕᴀᴀᴅ @NoahSchweber @Peter @JeremyRickard Just to be clear, I believe that this room should be used to discuss whether or not a question should be handled in a particular way. Discussion is healthy. However, please try to keep it to the content of the questions and answers (e.g. "I don't think the user understand the question" is not okay).

@Peter "the sense in which $a=a+1$ shoould hold is not clarified at all" There is nothing that needs clarification. The question states that a is the cardinality of the set A; both "=" and "+1" have completely standard meanings in the context of cardinality. (Note that "cardinality" is not the same as "cardinal" in the context of choiceless set theory - cf. "Scott cardinality.")

cv-pls probability PSQ. Was closed. Has been reopened. Does convergence of measures, with respect to the KL-divergence, imply almost sure convergence of the RN-derivatives?‭ - addition_man‭ 2024-05-03 22:59:23Z

This is just wrong: math.stackexchange.com/a/1195004/42969. Unfortunately I had not realised that originally (and even upvoted the answer when it came up as a possible duplicate target). If we can make the total score negative again then we can vote to delete it.

Can I get more eyes on this, please? It seems long and ramble-y, and like a bit of a vanity question, but I don't have the time or energy to try to parse it. Someone with more diffy q expertise might be able to read it more better.

@Ѕᴀᴀᴅ Several community users have put effort into improving this question

@Peter no activity on this post in the last 5 years - why are you bothering with it now?

please delete

When books have value, someone learns and is glad when they find them in a library. Unless SE runs out of storage some day and we have to extremely carefully consider every entry, I won’t be sure that I see these as “completely orthogonal” - but I agree they are not exactly the same.

@XanderHenderson A lot can be learned by checking details in proofs carefully and seeing where any subtleties or mistakes arise. Lord knows many authors are “guilty” of omitting very details, sometimes to the point of being incorrect, and a student can struggle to feel confident filling in those details for themselves or conducting their own proofs when their sources of authority are patchy. So of course there is value if the question is focused and made to be (somewhat) of general interest

Otherwise, you end up with a lot of "Is my proof correct?" questions which, at the end of the day, are a user asking the community to check or proofread their homework for them. This isn't really helpful in building a repository.

@DS C1 is multiply-duped, and C2 lacks context (why a derivative-free approach? what effort for finding such an approach?)

So , checking such a post is almost always a waste of time noone has deserved , unless the ckecker lives from such checks.

@SophieSwett Usually , such proofs of famous open conjectures are long , unclear and "not even wrong". This is not the job for volunteers as here , if at all , paid mathematicians should check such trials , in almost all cases the proofs are so invalid that it is even difficult to exactly point out the flaw. Often , there is no error in what is written down , but the conclusion that the problem is solved is totally unjustified.

Most of the "what's wrong with my proof?" questions are not on-topic, as they don't focus on a single issue.

@MikeEarnest Reopened. I’m not sure I follow how two extra close votes were introduced after it had already been edited.