@jgon done

This user made a legitimate attempt to edit and improve upon their originally garbage post.

I mean... they misspelled uncountable but It's clear they are an ESL speaker and I can't spell most of the time either... my point is that they are making a legit effort.

@amWhy. I can modify the post's answer. And let me be clear that the question itself is really only ok. (Though maybe not worthy of so many downvotes) but it's not unclear at this point. It's clear what the OP is asking.

@Mason The question is poor. It's a PSQ, and you failed to answer the question; you merely commented about how the asker of the question should improve their post. Your answer belongs in the comments below the question, not in an answer field.

@Mason Also, you've given a link to your comments on the post, which you inappropriately posted as an answer to the question. You did not link the question you refer to here.

I have modified the answer. Though I am kind of indifferent on that point. I am just as happy to delete it.

@Mason I see now that you altered your answer completely. It does not resemble your initial answer, which was not an answer.

Actually my first answer (if you look at the edits) was an answer (all be it a terrible one that mocked the OP basically). I think you must be commenting on my "second" answer which indeed was not an answer at all.

I am missing your second point I think. The link I included was just something that would direct the OP back to where s/he could edit it the post.

The only argument that I am making is that while the question is indeed a psq. The fact that a new user made an effort to fix their post is arguably behavior worth encouraging as is superior to many/most? of the behavior of psqers.

The "I think it should be uncountable." separates this post from the worst psqs which offer no thoughts on the problem at all. And the fact that a one liner " I think this..." doesn't make this post not a psq. The lack of elaboration can be explained as this user is not a native english speaker

@Mason I don't see any improvement. I see a PSQ.

And that was due to an edit you made, not the OP.

I clarified the language after the OP made an edit.

And the OP shows some effort in the comments.

I am over it but i guess I should just ask it like this: Will this PSQ get marked as: "lame psq" or will it be marked as "unclear" because in both cases it's not the question is unclear... it's just that the question is lame.

Why don't we have a "lame psq" category?

We have an "off topic: lacks context" close reason which fits the bill in this case, @Mason

But it's not normative to change an already on hold question from "unclear" to "off topic: lacks context"

Well.... your Q still lacked context. But that's not feedback that the OP got.

I think I am working with a molehill here but I think you see my point.

@Mason The asker is clearly confused and unclear. The question reads: "I think it is uncountable", but in a comment, the asker states: "i think it is countable but i cannot proof". So the asker is merely guessing; not thinking, not clarifying what their question is, nor why they think it is uncountable nor why they think it is countable. Hence, the close reason "unclear what you're asking" remains perfectly appropriate.

Thanks for letting me bug you about this one. I am sorry I posted a link to my comment and not the question itself. I can see how that could be confusing/annoying/not helpful.

@Mason Your example doesn't apply in this case. In this case, the asker has basically answered "it is true that it is uncountable?", and "it is true that it is uncountable." That's a contradiction equivalent to claiming $p\land \lnot p$.

Or equivalent to "it could be countable, but it could be uncountable". Of course. A coin is tossed: it could be heads, but it could be tails. Of course. There's no new information involved in such claims.

We are mincing over the details here. I mean this: We as a site should make an effort to retain users who are willing to make a decent amount of effort to put decent questions. Everyone else we should toss away. (Not that I am claiming this user fits into either category). This may require ok feedback. The feedback: "that's unclear" and "that's not the type of question we like here" are different types of feedback.

The nuance of what I think "clear" means or what you think it means matters very little to a user reading the words: "Question is on hold: unclear"

But anyway. I think I have left CRUDE territory for Math Meta land and my dog is barking and all the rest.

@Mason Please if you want to salvage questions, focus on clear questions in which the user provides context. To argue on behalf of the question that is unclear and off-topic, is wasting your time and ours.

To me it seems: It is clearly off-topic. It's just not clearly "unclear." And I don't want to salvage the question.

I just wondered if it's easy to change the status from "on hold: unclear." to "on hold: lacking context." I ask because I would think it's a better form of feedback. And I am curious if it's (1) easy? and (2) normative? because good feedback is part of what brings good users to the site.

or retains "good users" or whatever: I am just curious.

Sorry. I know that crude deals with a lot of users trying to "salvage" a doomed post. That isn't my effort. I don't care. really. It was always a bad post. My point is that the user made an effort to clarify a completely unclear post into something that is understandable. The question can be nuked as a psq nonetheless but I would think the ideal feedback shouldn't be "unclear" it should be "lame psq."

I am only worried now that I am somehow being painted as one who cares about salvaging my reputation or my posts or someone else's posts... I care to be seen as someone who really doesn't care about that...

@Mason No need to worry about this. I certainly don't see you as you are worried to be seen as. I know you mean well.

Lovely. :)

@Did @amWhy @XanderHenderson @Holo @RRL: This answerer is teaching wrong stuff and doesn't seem to understand when the mistake is pointed out.

@user21820. Why not suggest adding the needed conditional? The statement is true for positive $x$ no?

@Mason They have to learn for themselves.

There are thousands if not millions of students who cannot understand what is wrong with "(−1)^(6/2) = ((−1)^6)^2". Often, it is not even their fault, because their textbook did not specify the correct conditions for "a^(bc) = (a^b)^c". The error here is precisely of the same nature.

@Saad Gone.

@user21820. I added a comment. How's that? Not too leading but pretty darn leading.

@Saad (1) is up for deletion. (3) needs one more close-vote.

@Mason Sure that's a great comment you added.

@DevashishKaushik Up for deletion. For some crazy reason it has 4 reopen-votes now...

@Holo Gone. It's too broad too.

Bogus proof posted as a challenge (see asker's comment on the answer)...

Up for deletion:

A, B, C,

D, E, F,

G, H, I,

J, K, L,

M, N, O,

P, Q, R,

S, T, U,

V, W, X,

Y, Z, ⬜.

Please consider for deletion: A and B

@user21820: Working on it.

Solve it completely ...

@user21820 close

Thanks!

@user21820 B, E, K, L, T, W, X, Y, Z, ⬜ remain

@Lord_Farin Thanks! :∘)

reopen 1

reopen I linked to a comment to include their context

→ 2 messages moved to Mathematics

Some duplicate votes needed here. Perhaps this is the best target to close as a duplicate of, it is the identical question, and has answers using various methods (induction, Sylvester's identity, eigenvalues).

For closure: 1, 2, 3

Bad HNQ

PSQ

PSQ

For deletion - 1, 2

PSQ

PSQ

For deletion

@Shaun Comments are ephemeral and subject to deletion without notice. Important context should be edited into the question, and not left as a comment. Until the comment(s) are added to the question itself, I cannot vote to reopen.

@XanderHenderson reopen That's a fair point. I've edited the question.

@Shaun It is open

These closed PSQs are up for deletion: D1, D2, and D3

delete Overly broad and seemingly looking for personal advice, and not really about math. It currently has four reopen votes, so it will probably end up getting reopened. If so, it should probably be closed.