CURED - 2018-12-01

1:35 AM

Looking to reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018492/how-many-nerode-equivalent-classes-for-language-l-k
Not sure how this chatroom works. Sorry if im in the wrong place.

SmokeDetector

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Repeating characters in answer (82): Finding solutions to $x + y = xy$ where $x > y$ by lovelace13 on math.SE

Alexander Gruber

4:45 AM

@JoeyKilpatrick this is what the room is for. But the question should be edited in accordance with the closure message before being reopened.

4

Joey Kilpatrick

5:05 AM

The question was edited by another user, but after posting here the edits have been rolled back. The format of the question is very similar to other questions with the tag. The question has enough context to be answered.

Robert Frost

8:28 AM

@JoeyKilpatrick This room is a co-ordinated effort by a small number of users to primarily close and delete questions. It's probably fair to say the "Reopen Undelete Edit" part of the room's name is misleading about the degree of success you might expect in discussing the reopening of questions. You can also try here: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/28692/…

Joey Kilpatrick

@RobertFrost Great, thanks for the help

Martin Sleziak

8:52 AM

@RobertFrost I do not think that the name is misleading. Although it is true that deletions and closure are discussed more often.

Robert Frost

@MartinSleziak let's not be silly

Martin Sleziak

Not every user here uses such system, but among those messages which use tags, you can find many that discuss whether some question could be improved, undeleted, or reopened: chat.stackexchange.com/… and chat.stackexchange.com/…

3

@RobertFrost Exactly. That's why I corrected you.

3

This rooms was discussed at length in your post on meta: Is CRUDE healthy? So I do not think we can add too much to that discussion.

Robert Frost

@MartinSleziak I asked for discussion about closure and deletion of a question chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/47836575#47836575 and all I got was untrue statements about the question chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/47838037#47838037 and personal insults about my inability to understand my own question chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/47839103#47839103 none of which are legitimate grounds for closure and deletion.

But if I posted a close / delete request you would all be on it like a tramp on a kipper

Martin Sleziak

But the shortcut "Close/Reopen/Undelete/Delete/Edit" correctly describes what the room is intended for. The fact that some of them are more frequent than others does not meant that the other ones are off-topic here.

@RobertFrost Well, you certainly admit that your posts are often quite atypical for this site (and for mathematical questions in general).

Robert Frost

@MartinSleziak In my opinion the disparity in weight given to different topics makes the room's description a little disingenuous. It wouldn't be politically expedient to call it the "Close / Delete room". But it wasn't my intention to call you out (and I don't necessarily take issue with the room's purpose). My intention was simply to tell Joey straight how it is.

Martin Sleziak

9:03 AM

@RobertFrost Well, I think Alexander Gruber did, in my opinion, much better job in "telling how it is".

In any case, it is quite obvious that my opinion and your opinion on crude is quite different. Probably rehashing things which were discussed at lengths in the past is not a productive way to spend time for either of us.

Robert Frost

@MartinSleziak Those closure messages are pretty cryptic to be fair, to users who frequently believe they have already satisfied all the conditions they ask.

user21820

The close-banner links directly to:

167

Q: How to ask a good question.

How to ask a good question. This thread has advice on the following aspects of writing a good question on this site. Each item in this list links to an answer below about that specific aspect of question writing. Provide context, $\,$ include the source and motivation for your question, $\,$ a...

Martin Sleziak

@RobertFrost Well, they are not certainly cryptic for experienced user like you. I can imagine that they may be unclear for a new user if they do not notice the link with detailed explanation - which is why Michael Hardy's suggestion gained quite a lot of support: A feature requested for the purpose of avoiding unintentional newbie-biting

Robert Frost

@MartinSleziak yes, I mean they don't explain the rules well to newbies

I don't have that excuse, nor shouldI after so long

Martin Sleziak

In any case, to give an update to stuff discussed recently in this room: Joey Kilpatrick asked on meta about this: Do questions have to be “good questions” to $\textbf{not}$ be put on-hold/closed?.

As far as the question Is it possible to define the Cantor power series tuple-function of infinite degree $f_\omega:\Bbb N^{<\omega}\to \Bbb N$? is concerned, there is now a separate post about this question in the reopen request thread.

Robert Frost

9:11 AM

@MartinSleziak yeah, I just did that. So I'm counting CRUDE users... expect 5 or 6 fairly rapid downvotes

now you drew attention to it

@MartinSleziak by the way, I frequently took a close vote on the chin and just accepted it, and there were many righteous ones. I only ever came here and challenged it where I thought it was wrong.

Martin Sleziak

I am not sure to which extent the phrase "CRUDE users" makes sense, since every Mathematics user can come to this chat room. But since I have 15% of total messages in this room, any reasonable interpretation probably includes me.

If you think that I would downvote any post without thinking, just because it was mentioned in specific room - personally, I consider that a bit insulting.

TheSimpliFire

HNQ for closure.

Martin Sleziak

I would not hesitate to downvote it if I think it deserves a downvote, the same with upvoting, voting to close/reopen, delete/undelete. And if I do not feel competent enough to judge the post, than I do not take any of those actions.

@TheSimpliFire To be honest, the question does not seem too bad to me. (But maybe other users have higher requirements than I do.) In any case, I have edited title to include integral - which both makes the title more informative and removes it from HNQ; since the title now contains MathJax.

TheSimpliFire

@MartinSleziak I would say that there is significant room for improvement in terms of context for that question. At the very very least if the asker does not know how to start the question, they should provide their attempts to solve it by hand even if it leads to nowhere, and perhaps give the output as well

Martin Sleziak

At least if we consider whether the question is missing context, the fact that the OP did some numerical experiments counts as context to me.

TheSimpliFire

9:28 AM

@MartinSleziak It is context, but I don't think it's sufficient. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if this is allowed then all definite integral questions will be on-topic as long as the asker plugs the expression into WA.

Martin Sleziak

If I may say, it's clear that many user here will disagree with Robert Frost's opinion, but let's reserve offensive flags for stuff that is truly offensive.

@TheSimpliFire I'd guess that this should be judged on case by case basis. Finding [Conjecture $\int_0^1\frac{dx}{\sqrt[3]x\,\sqrt[6]{1-x}\,\sqrt{1-x\left(\sqrt{6}\sqrt{12+ 7\sqrt3}-3\sqrt3-6\right)^2}}=\frac\pi9(3+\sqrt2\sqrt[4]{27})$](math.stackexchange.com/q/538564) by numerical experiments is certainly not on the same level as finding $\int_0^1 x^2 dx$ by numerical experiments.

TheSimpliFire

@MartinSleziak Certainly.

Martin Sleziak

And there is certainly ~~lot of shades of grey~~ large area in between - you've been around long enough that it's clear to you that in many cases two users will not agree what is sufficient context and what isn't.

TheSimpliFire

@MartinSleziak Yes, users have different standards as to what questions do and don't deserve closure, but we need to ensure that those standards are acceptable. In this case, I'll leave it open to others to comment. But unless there's an edit which adds further context (difficult to define right now as it depends on the edit), I will still stand my close vote.

Martin Sleziak

In this specific case - the question 3020916 Tricky real integral: $\int_0^{2 \pi} e^{\cos(2 t)} \cos(\sin(2 t)) =2\pi$ - I have to say that I like that question. So if it gets closed, I would definitely prefer working with the OP on ways to improve the question (assuming I have time to do so) rather than deleting it.

TheSimpliFire

9:37 AM

@MartinSleziak I would encourage you to do that if you have the time. If the asker responds and agrees to improve the question then that's for the better.

Martin Sleziak

Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, there is quite a lot stuff I should do this weekend. (Hard to believe I know - as you can see me procrastinating here in chat.)

TheSimpliFire

@MartinSleziak Same here!! :P

I'll see you around later then. I've got to go now

TheSimpliFire

10:07 AM

This PSQ has 4 reopen votes. I have rolled back the edit but it is evident that it still lacks significant context.

2

Any improvements/additional details to this answer are welcome for discussion!

0

A: Do questions have to be "good questions" to $\textbf{not}$ be put on-hold/closed?

I believe that this issue of what and what's not on-topic, or what counts as a question deserving closure has cropped up too many times in MSE. Is it the standing policy of this community to allow a question only if they meet every single one of these requirements? First of all, let's go th...

Robert Frost

10:23 AM

I wouldn't take it to heart @MartinSleziak . I'm assuming nothing about your actions personally. I do think there have been one or two inappropriate votes in this instance but you should recognise it is a compliment to the integrity of any who may have voted wrongly, rather than an insult, that I come directly to them knowing that they might reconsider their actions and reverse them if they see fit.

user21820

11:30 AM

@amWhy @JoséCarlosSantos @CarlMummert @Did: Non-math here and here as explained here.

PSQs: 1, 2, 3.

amWhy

@user21820 Each has two delete votes; I had already voted to delete the first you listed.

TheSimpliFire

2 is deleted.

amWhy

1 is now closed

TheSimpliFire

@user21820 I'm trying to find that post where users suggested changes to the off-topic close reasons. Do you know where that is?

^ in particular, missing context

amWhy

3 needs one more downvote, and then deletion votes can be cast by users with rep > 20 k

TheSimpliFire

11:43 AM

@amWhy sure, should be available now

amWhy

@TheSimpliFire Great: 3 is open for deletion.

TheSimpliFire

@TheSimpliFire I asked this due to this comment:

@TheSimpliFire I understand every other reason for closure, except the missing context. From the way that I read what is written, the missing context is for questions that cannot be answered because there is missing information. The text says "which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem..." This does not say that they must include those things. I understand the rationale for using this flag to close these questions, but this seems to twist the original meaning of the text, enforcing an unwritten rule that is not nessecarily agreed upon by the community. — Joey Kilpatrick 40 mins ago

and I'd like to inform them of the potential changes to the wording of the rationale for Missing Context.

user21820

@TheSimpliFire We have gone over this before. That's precisely one of the issues my proposal avoids:

4

A: Two announcements: new "FAQ" and new "closure rules"

I propose a more informative close-reason (as an alternative to Aloizio's proposed replacement of the "missing context or other details" reason): This question is missing context or research effort: Please provide additional details, explaining why the question is valuable or important, or wh...

TheSimpliFire

@user21820 Precisely what I was looking for, thanks!

user21820

@TheSimpliFire However it's not what the moderators proposed, and their proposal will not address the issue mine does.

Martin Sleziak

11:47 AM

BTW that question is linked in the tag-info for context.

user21820

Nov 10 at 16:51, by user21820

That's also why I dropped the "ideally".

Nov 11 at 4:22, by user21820

@AlexanderGruber Just use "should" and drop "ideally" completely.

in Math Mods' Office, Nov 10 at 17:22, by Xander Henderson

Regarding the proposed close text, I think that it is an improvement, but I am not sure that I like the inclusion of the word "ideally" here.

TheSimpliFire

^^ @JoeyKilpatrick

Martin Sleziak

Maybe adding the context tag to the question Two announcements: new “FAQ” and new “closure rules” could be reasonable change? (Although the post is not only about context.)

TheSimpliFire

12:05 PM

For deletion soon

José Carlos Santos

@TheSimpliFire It's ready for deletion.

amWhy

@JoséCarlosSantos @TheSimpliFire one delete vote needed

Robert Frost

12:29 PM

@TheSimpliFire Closure and deletion here breaches the Codeof Conduct math.stackexchange.com/conduct be welcoming.

amWhy

@RobertFrost That is your perspective. Your conclusion is not fact.

2

Arnaud D.

12:50 PM

@RobertFrost Can you still see your deleted question? I know that one needs 10K to see all deleted posts, but I think there are some exceptions for one's own deleted posts, or maybe just the self-deleted ones.

Robert Frost

@ArnaudD. Yes I can see my own deleted posts.

...at least for a while.

Then after some time they become impossible to find.

Martin Sleziak

@ArnaudD. Any user can see their deleted question provided they have a link. 10k+ users have also possibility to find own their deleted posts, for lower rep users there is such possibility only if the post was relatively recent. More details can be found here on meta: Is there any way to see my deleted questions or answers?

Probably I should have also mentioned that if a user self-deletes the question, they can always find the question in the delete votes tab in their profile. So problem with finding the link is only for questions deleted by others (and roomba).

Arnaud D.

@MartinSleziak Thanks for the link. I think I had actually seen it recently, but had again forgotten...

Martin Sleziak

I meant to say "find their own deleted post" (not "find own their" - which doe snot make much sense). Too late to edit. But whoever talked with me in chat is used to the fact that I do many typos.

amWhy

@MartinSleziak reely? I nevir notised! :P

@MartinSleziak You actually do as well as any of us; it's hard when there is so little time to go back and edit in chat comments.

Martin Sleziak

1:02 PM

Well, some users found a workaround for that problem. But only very few.

TheSimpliFire

1:29 PM

For closure. The asker should know better after six years

TheSimpliFire

3:15 PM

3 more delete votes

and this same one should also be closed

amWhy

4:01 PM

@TheSimpliFire One more delete vote needed now.

amWhy

5:05 PM

Hi, @AlexanderGruber Glad to see you! Also, you're beating all our butts in the close vote review queue!! :-) Note that I have no objections to that!!

Alexander Gruber

@amWhy yeah-- i have to update my research statement

so, naturally, time for close review queue

amWhy

@AlexanderGruber hahahaha!

DRF

6:51 PM

I'm not sure this is the best place to ask (or an acceptable place to ask even), but having been somewhat active around the PSQ math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018492/… I would love to ask why there is so much negativity. I've seen a number of responses to Joey's/mine questions and comments that were annoyed, angry and in some cases downright rude.

I feel that neither of us are particularly disruptive members of Math.se from what I can tell and both of us were just interested in saving a reasonable if badly posed question by a first time poster. This was a poster (the OP) that actually came back to find very much a less than welcoming response.

amWhy

I would love to ask why there is so much positivity for a rather poor post with little context, @DRF? As you note, the question is a PSQ. That's not acceptable. This site is not a "do my work for me service", in case you don't understand that, or it hasn't been made clear enough to you.

2

DRF

@amWhy A couple of reasons in my opinion. Some bad some good. One bad reason is that the question is fun. It's interesting leads to a nice possible answer that can be a great addition to the site and is not here so far (that I could find anyway).

amWhy

@DRF "fun" isn't really considered an attribute of a good question. Bouncing a superball might be fun; playing with a yo-yo might be fun; watching football might be fun, but none of those activities are about math, primarily.

DRF

@amWhy Ignoring the fact that while that is strongly breached every day by many answerers (I saw 95k rep person answer a much worse PSQ today), I understand that. And again maybe it's just my skewed perception but that was one hostile way of pointing it out.

@amwhy Sure superball isn't about math. But how to prove minimality of an automaton quite certainly is about math.

@amwhy we/mathSE answers 100's of questions which differ from "do my homework for me" by pretty much adding please and maybe "I tried this half-hearted attempt that took 3 minutes". Most of them are repeated questions that have been here many times (calc/basic prob/basic algebra) and differ from the old ones by constants.

The OP did a bad job I admit that. He's obviously a non-native speaker. As someone who has to occasionally try to formulate something in a third language which I'm mediocre at I can relate to the problems one can have with it.

Going bad to the good reasons for the positivity I was convinced that the idea of SE sites was to build up an interesting long term base of information regarding the topics. That's why we insist on having everything in MathJax, not linking external sources when possible etc. Increasing the base of information seems like a good thing to do.

You may notice that to avoid the main argument over at the OP's question which we are obviously gonna lose (even though it got reopened and my edit trying to add information was readded after being agressively rolled back as not the OP's words, it ended up getting closed again in short order) I ended up just writing a new question with the same content adding please and a half hearted attempt at an answer. If noone gives an answer to it in a few days I will write the answer up myself.

Anyway I think Math.SE is a great site that does a huge amount for promoting math helping people that try to learn it and creating an awesome base of information that can be browsed and searched. At the same time I strongly support the work all of you (moderators/helpers/answerers and even cleaners of PSQ's) do here. I try to help occasionally myself. All I was trying to say is if 3 people with 30k+ rep get annoyed by well meant (if possibly misguided) questions to the point that they ...

start telling people, that do try to answer here well and do a decent job, that they should consider switching to Yahoo answers, I feel a little sad.

@amwhy Yes /rantoff. Sorry forgot to add that.

@amwhy Ok interesting approach voting to close the new question I posed that does have background and information. So you are actually trying to prove this has nothing to do with the content of the question and whether or not it has enough background/motivation etc?

amWhy

7:34 PM

@DRF I merely voted that it is a duplicate question and should be closed as such.

2

Xander Henderson

@DRF Don't ask a new question to replicate a closed question; improve the closed question instead, then ask to have that question reopened.

DRF

@xander tried to do that. Got stomped on for not being the OP and not knowing what their intent was.

Xander Henderson

Oh, shoot. Sorry. I didn't notice that.

That makes the situation a little harder to figure out.

I believe that the advice in the past has been to open a new, better question, rather than to put words in the mouth of the original asker.

That being said, it might be a good idea to link to the original question and explain why you are asking a new question, e.g. "This question was closed for lack of context, but I think that it is an interesting question. Rather than put words into the mouth of another user, I am asking this question to provide additional context."

That being said, it is often a good idea to wait a few days, in case the original asker improves the question.

DRF

@xander fair enough I can do that. I did link the other way.

Xander Henderson

For what it is worth (and I am clearly coming into this rather late), it seems to me that you've done the right thing.

DRF

7:44 PM

@xander thank you. Though you are coming late so you might yet change your mind and I wouldn't hold it against you.:) I'm sure there are things I'm missing but I have yet to understand what exactly they are. I don't want to say I wasn't told because maybe I was and am just not grokking it.

@xander Hmm it turns out that what I posed is actually a different question after all so I suppose I will just leave it as is. There were changes made in the original that I didn't notice and so I kept a (slightly) more interesting version of things by keeping a factorial in place of a $\neq$.

Martin Sleziak

8:20 PM

I will just point out that the questions are not duplicates.

One question is about $x\ne y$, the other one is about $x!=y$ (with factorial).

One of the reasons why I was one of the two users who voted to close as "unclear what you're asking" was that apparently there were several interpretations of the question - it was unclear whether the OP asks about "not equal" or factorial. (Which is why asked them to clarify in a comment.)

DRF

@MartinSleziak Yes. Which slightly undermines my point about trying to help the OP because sadly it was their rather sloppy presentation that led to me reading the question as being about factorial.

Martin Sleziak

I wanted just clarify why I voted the way I voted. (Although the close reason which is displayed, is the majority reason - three users voted to close as off-topic/missing context. I remember that I was not the first user to choose "unclear" when I voted.)

Martin Sleziak

8:41 PM

Of course, it was to be expected that the question gains more attention (and then more close/reopen votes) after it has been mentioned on meta.

Martin Sleziak

9:14 PM

@XanderHenderson The most recent discussion on meta related to this that I remember is ehere: Is it okay to re-ask a deleted question? (Maybe other users remember other related posts.)

Xander Henderson

Thanks for the link, @MartinSleziak.

amWhy

11:16 PM

@DRF Yes it does undermine your point (which was ?); exactly. So you asked an entirely different question, "on behalf" of an asker who failed to take the time to explain their question.

2

RRL

11:31 PM

Hi @amWhy I started visiting this room recently and participating in voting -- as I became aware of the proliferation of low quality questions (and answers). Any suggestions how I can help further?

amWhy

@RRL Hi! I've noticed your many votes here, and they've been much appreciated. You are always welcome here, to vote, or suggest posts that seem to you to be in need of action. Also, in the review queues, you can vote on whether or not to close up to twenty posts, whether or not to reopen posts formerly closed, posts deemed low quality. But let me add you have not gone unnoticed here!

RRL

Thank you. I've started to use the queue and exercise my Gold badge privilege in Real Analysis. I tend to avoid Calculus because of the depressing quantity of PSQs and duplicates, but I'll get that badge soon and become more active there. I admire this small group who are taking on the daunting task of cleaning things up.

2

amWhy

@RRL You are so very welcome here! We need all the help we can get!

amWhy

11:59 PM

Hi @quid. Did you see this meta post?

Transcript for

$Mathematics$ CURED