@user334732 It will not. All cranks have their own idiosyncratic nonsense. If it stays deleted, as it should, then it will never again be arrived at by others who have not seen it. If it is undeleted, then more cranks would parrot the muck. As Mike said, by "a lot" I meant the massive number of cranks, which is still much fewer than the number of people who actually understand mathematics.

@Did @amWhy @XanderHenderson @Holo @MikeMiller @RRL @Lord_Farin @AndrésE.Caicedo: This is another useless post by the same user who claims that real analysis and binomial theorem presuppose cardinal arithmetic. Please help to downvote, since the upvoters are clearly clueless about logic and set theory.

@user21820 Jeebus, but do people ever get hung up on notation.

Arturo Magidin's answer to that question is spot on.

Another similar nonsensical post that claims Principia is superior to Z. (Which is not even related to the question...)

@XanderHenderson Actually I disagree. All limit laws have conditions, and it is silly to say we shouldn't define 0^0 just because we need to have restrictions on the limit laws.

But we should discuss that in another room.

Link me to that other room...

SBA's realm. =)

@user21820 like i said i'm going to have to entirely defer to other mods on this issue-- i'm just in no position to judge. There are a few other diamonds who know stuff about logic who will know what to do.

i think asaf or michael have expressed opinions on the topic before.

@AlexanderGruber Of course; I didn't mean to imply you need to do anything. Anyway, there are enough people here who know logic besides myself who would vote to undelete if it was actually valuable. Unfortunately, those who vote to undelete such stuff are the people who don't. But you could probably ask Asaf for a more direct comment than the one he gave. =)

@user170039 Suggested edits are routinely rejected on the basis that they "conflict with the intent of the author". You are of course welcome to write the answer you believe answers the question.

@amWhy Right, and it is even a reason among the given reasons for rejecting.

@user170039 can you give me an example?

Which any reviewer would know.

@user170039 Just to be clear, you are free to write a separate answer that you believe answers the question. But it's not a good idea to write the answer you want to give via an edit to another's answer.

@user170039 sorry, i really have no idea

@user170039 You said you're not asking anything regarding that post. But now you're talking about that post. ?!?

To whomever is flagging comments, please note that this room has been admonished for being too quick to flag.

Please knock it off.

@user170039 You please stop saying one thing but doing another.

@user170039 Stop trying to wriggle out of your mistake. It's not my mistake. You said "I am not asking anything regarding this particular post." If that is not what you meant, then it's your mistake, not mine.

And I'm really tired of having to deal with all these mathematically useless posts that people want to make a big fuss of trying to resurrect.

Good for mathematics. End of discussion.

SO erm, I noticed the flag, and I don't know anything about math.

@user170039 someone on my chatroom does it actually.

We politely remind him not to. Then ignore him

Don't forget, the most important tool of chat moderation is de-escalation.

@JourneymanGeek But this is in response to a user who spams a chatroom by posting repeatedly objections which require another user to repeatedly confront said user, who then flags.

If y'all are annoyed but it isn't something like offensive or threatening or.. that kinda garbage, hitting that ignore button, or figuring you can let a cooler head deal with it works wonders.

@JourneymanGeek Please ask the Math SE mods privately to know the history. I could tell you, but it's better for you to get information directly from those you probably trust more.

@user21820 @amWhy I always ping them first

But this spills out, and not everyone's going to stick their head in and go "guyyyyys"

Even though any of the professional logicians on Math SE will be able to tell you the same facts as well.

@user21820 quoting yourself is annoying though

@JourneymanGeek As I said, you don't know the history of this user.

@JourneymanGeek Thanks.

@user21820 so, ignore him

@JourneymanGeek Impossible. We've tried.

@JourneymanGeek We are aware that flagging annoys the outsiders. Unfortunately, there are people who frequent this room who like to abuse their privilege of raising flags.

It happens from time to time.

clearly he presses your buttons in a way that brings out the worst in you

@XanderHenderson that's true

but its not about the flags. people need to feel safe to flag

but y'all also need to consider the underlying issues. And stop being so... angry at each other :/

@JourneymanGeek Some people feel too safe to flag. And do so, time and time again.

y'all are clearly passionate about math, a subject that typically leaves me in tears and recrimination.

@amWhy true - or they feel its safer than, I donno, realising they're mad at someone and taking a walk. (Something I've done a few times)

Anyway, totally off-topic. Enough of this, or please move to Meta chat.

Thanks.

@user21820 I don't think that was very polite.

@JourneymanGeek Just ask the Math mods instead of assuming this user is just another ordinary user.

@JourneymanGeek A couple of us, I think, are gals! ;P

Okay, the topic of this room is closing, reopening, undeleting, deleting, and editing posts. We are clearly off-topic right now.

@amWhy or gals. I do consider guys to be a unisex term of frustration.

As per the instructions we were given last time flags got raised, I am putting this room on timeout.

@user21820 asked one first actually.

._. Not sure there's the need to. Anyway, lets hope I don't need to pop in here again and tell y'all to be nice. I'll leave you to your math and janitoring.

@JourneymanGeek Math can be fun. Don't give up on it, or on mathematicians...

Poor posts up for deletion: 1, 2, 3 (see also this).

Only tangentially related to the purpose of this room, but I'll just mention that a message from CRUDE was referenced in the post on Meta Stack Exchange: Some questions regarding CoC and flagging comment to understand them better.

I do not want to escalate things and cause more conflicts that there already are - but since this room was involved in the events that lead to the question I mentioned, probably it might be good for regulars of this room at least to be aware of it.

As far as I can tell it was not mentioned here - but it was mentioned in another room. And in fact a few of the people who visit this room were pinged there. Sorry for the digression from the main purpose of this room.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in link text in answer, pattern-matching website in answer, potentially bad ns for domain in answer (161): weighted average of interest rate by jasmine watson on math.SE

Just for reference, I think we need to take the work, given in the following link as very important: meta.stackexchange.com/q/320172/347474.

@amWhy @Did @Lord_Farin @MikeMiller: More from the proposer of a so-called 'humility principle': 4, 5.

@user21820 4 is gone

Yup; even the answerer, Noah Schweber, voted to delete it.

@user21820 I understand your crusade against this kind of "worldview beyond discussion" posts (for lack of a better term). However I am a bit concerned that this could be considered targeted voting. For some of these cases, NAA/LQ flag would seem more appropriate. Why not use this instead?

@Lord_Farin Because it never works. I did that many times, but NAA reviewers mostly lack competency in logic so my flags get disputed, while they upvote the posts, making it impossible for experts to get rid of it.

Now that there are sufficiently many logic experts in here, including yourself, we can do the job much more efficiently. If any expert thinks any deleted post should be undeleted, they can likewise post it here and explain.

@Lord_Farin And concerning potential "targeted voting", I always consider each post on its own merit, and only where there is ambiguity do I rely on past history of the user. There are some posts by such users that do not deserve to be closed or deleted, while those that propose nonsense do.

If you don't mind, can you email me at the address in my profile, @user21820? I have a question about site history.

Thanks again.

(But be advised, I don't have 20k so I can't delete answers.)

@Lord_Farin Oh okay. So I guess you may not be aware that 20k users can't even vote to delete an answer unless it has negative total score. That is one of the reasons it is so difficult for even experts to get rid of what we deem useless.

Thanks for your responses too; I understand your concerns as well.

It is so annoying that people use logic in every question with "and" in it...

@Holo What about all those people who use the proof-writing tag whenever they ask for a proof?

@JoséCarlosSantos I usually look on the tags of set/logic, and I don't see them a lot. But yea, it is all the same! So annoying!

@Holo Just a technical question: how did you typeset the word logic like that?

@JoséCarlosSantos [tag:somthing-something]somthing-something

@Holo Thanks!

@Holo @Holo a @JoséCarlosSantos There is a post on meta with a proposal which might help with this a bit: Do we want tag warnings, and for which tags? I am not sure whether some of the suggestions there have been implemented.

@MartinSleziak Thanks for the reference! I didn't saw this in the site, so I am not sure if any got implemented, but it would be nice

I have mentioned this in Math Meta chat, we will see whether somebody notices this there. (Although now near the end of the year people are probably concentrating on other things than what can be improved on their favorite Stack Exchange site.)

linear-algebra is another over-used tag, not meant for students wanting to find the equation of a tangent line to a curve, or to construct the equation of a line given two points. Etc.

Up for deletion: 1, 2, 3.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Mostly dots in answer (34): Definition of an "Experiment" in Probability ✏️ by Sam on math.SE

@MikeMiller @Did @amWhy: Yet another CH poof complete with self blog promo.

@user21820 "Poof" indeed. :-) More seriously, a fact which strikes me is how all these purported proofs are lacking in novelty. Always the same "hey let us put all the digits in an array then R is countable and anyway Cantor was wrong I knew it all along" trick... Feel like shouting: Be wrong all you like, but at least be wrong in a distracting way!

Wow previous iteration here, and see also 1 and 2. For the record see also this deleted question.

@Did What is more striking to me is how all of them think that they are the first (and sometimes only) one to disprove all the logicians before them!

But of course, WM will like those who say Cantor diagonalization is wrong.

You know about WM, right?

@user21820 Indeed, but you see, this is because logic is so easy, everybody knows logic, anybody can start proving things in logic on the spot. :-)

@Did Oh you're right. Everyone thinks they are being logical after all. Nobody likes to admit that their pet argument was illogical. =)

And don't forget the conspiracy theories!

@user21820 I do. Unfortunately. I prefer the soccer system to the MSE user and their multiple avatars...

@Did The strong law of small acronyms strikes again.

This is a horrible "audit" question for "reopen votes": math.stackexchange.com/q/3027467/9003. One is supposed to vote to reopen, when it presents in the "reopen queue"!

Hello there, @ArtOfCode! Welcome!

Re: the "reopen view audit above": see math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/29515/9003

delete 1, 2, 3

delete 4, 5, 6

delete 7, 8, 9, 10

@Lord_Farin All gone!

This edit was, in my opinion, entirely inappropriate. It removes two contractions (okay, fine); but also inserts an incorrect capital letter. Would I be out of line rolling it back?

(Not to mention that it was an entirely trivial edit which bumped a three year old question on meta.)

@XanderHenderson I'd say roll back. I detest trivial edits, and this "edit" was trivial.

I rolled it back. Not only was it trivial, it was wrong.

@XanderHenderson indeed

@amWhy Good riddance.

@XanderHenderson Is there a benefit to such edit? (For the editor, I know there is no for the post itself)

On meta? No, I don't think so.

On the main site, it can be worth +2 XP to a newish user.

So I have no clue for what was the edit

It looks like the question was discussed in Math Meta Chat about 12 hours ago:

The edit was made just after that.

So, my guess is that the editor follow math meta chat, saw the question, and decided to "fix" things.

I see

Still, feel rude