CURED - 2018-12-09

2:52 AM

@XanderHenderson @MikeMiller: Is this considered useful to you?

What about this?

3:48 AM

@user21820 1) No. I usually think it is a bad idea to have any thread of the form "Why isn't X a proof of famous conjecture Y?" But I would hesitate to vote to close without thinking about it, since maybe there is some content there, and I am not going to waste my time reading it to check.
2) The question about Warren Buffett is not *obviously* about math, but there is good hidden content there, involving a misunderstanding of the right type of average. Certainly I think that the question, paired with the answers it received, is of value.

user21820

@MikeMiller Okay thanks for your input. Should we close the first one?

Mike Miller

I'm not willing to read it, and therefore not willing to have an opinion about that.

It's in the dangerzone where at least one person ought to read it and decide, though.

user21820

The problem is that anyone who posts a question on Math SE about the Collatz conjecture is a.s. (almost surely) not capable of getting basic stuff right. And as you say it is an annoying waste of time to even read it (assuming one can even make sense of it).

3

Mike Miller

Admittedly agreed, but I do not know if there is precedent for closing posts with the reason "This is a question asking about a proof attempt of a well-known open problem" on MSE (there is on MO, and this is applied to almost every RH question.)

user21820

@MikeMiller There is precedent (I recall quite a number of users including Asaf doing precisely that and stating it explicitly in the custom close reason) but I've never done so without reading the post first.

Maybe we need to adopt the same stance as MO does on RH.

Mike Miller

3:59 AM

@user21820 Perhaps. I think I would want to open a meta thread before starting to do that uniformly.

user21820

@MikeMiller Sure. I'll still continue to read before voting, but was just asking your opinion on the value of keeping such posts on the site.

Mike Miller

(In particular I will stick by the usual "no voting unless I've read the post" policy for this one, which in particular... I will not read.)

No problem.

Aloizio Macedo

5:53 AM

→ 148 messages moved to Math Meta Chat

I've moved the extended conversation that was off-topic here to Math Meta Chat.

SmokeDetector

6:29 AM

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Repeating characters in answer (82): What is the mathematical interpretation of random variable equation? ✏️ by bum0271828 on math.SE

Jyrki Lahtonen

8:15 AM

@AloizioMacedo I quite understand why you wanted to relocate that discussion. But can you please still my fears, and confirm that Bill Dubuque was also invited to that chatroom? I replied to him there. Uncertain whether he is interested in continuing the discussion, but I would like to see whether he can present points of view I have overlooked (on a related theme).

Martin Sleziak

@JyrkiLahtonen Doesn't author of every message that was moved get automatically an invitation?

Maybe somebody can find where this is clearly documented, but I remember getting invitation to Trash where some messages were moved there and also these feature request suggest that this is the case: Don't invite people when moving their messages and Allow moderators to move messages without inviting users into the new room.

@JyrkiLahtonen It seems that Bill Dubuque is not pingable in that room, so it seems that this is not influenced by the moved messages. If you want to make sure that a specific user gets your ping, you can use reply to their message in such cases.

See also: Does a direct reply to a message in chat create a notification, no matter what age the message is? and Does ping work in chat with no autocompletion?

SmokeDetector

8:33 AM

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive answer detected, toxic answer detected (161): The relation between eigenvalues and inner product of eigenvectors of a real orthogonal matrix where $[R^T]=[R^{-1}]$. by stevie wonder on math.SE

Martin Sleziak

@SmokeDetector why?

I see now, this does not work in all rooms - the list of rooms where commands are accepted is listed here: github.com/Charcoal-SE/SmokeDetector/wiki/Chat-Rooms (the section "Commands are accepted from"). "why" is among the commands that are available to every user: github.com/Charcoal-SE/SmokeDetector/wiki/Commands

TheSimpliFire

@SmokeDetector Looks like that user's spamming the site recently

Martin Sleziak

@TheSimpliFire Of course, other posts by the same user can be reported to SE manually if auto-detection missed it. But I do not think that the other posts qualify for rude/abusive flag (and also this one is borderline). I simply flagged as naa and voted to delete.

TheSimpliFire

@MartinSleziak Yes, I flagged as rude for that one and naa for the rest

user21820

10:36 AM

@MartinSleziak From what I can tell, only users that are addressed (whether directly or by replying to their message) will be pinged whenever those messages are moved, and this seems to be a bug rather than a feature, because it is simply a result of those messages being 'posted again' in the target chat-room.

Martin Sleziak

@user21820 Just to make sure whether we are talking about the same thing, I did not claim that the users are pinged in the same way as when @username is used, I am saying that when somebody's messages are moved, the user gets invitation to the new chatroom.

user21820

@MartinSleziak Oh oops I missed that somehow.

→ 1 message moved to Math Meta Chat

Martin Sleziak

10:56 AM

In any case, it probably not that important to know the exact details. If somebody wants to make sure that the user notices that the messages were moved or that the discussion continues elsewhere, they can ping them to achieve that.

close-delete automaton

@user21820 The asker has obviously put a huge amount of work into composing that question. I'm confident there will be people who take an interest in reading it. Questions like that frequently lead to detailed analysis and reply. So if two consenting people want to ask and be answered, I see no reason to get in their way.

@user21820 I think already some degree of concensus already that it is acceptable to ask a question about some aspect of an open problem, e.g. I want to construct a topological argument of the form x to apply in this way to a certain open problem, is this thing true or how does y work. But certainly conjectured proofs are more frowned upon

But then by the same token where MO in theory has a universal policy against open problems, there are frequently cases where some question is clearly an attack on, or equivalent to, an open problem, and a all for completion or checking of the proof or method of attack.

Then when these are found "sufficiently promising" or "sufficiently interesting" the policy goes out of the window and the question is embraced.

@user21820 such as here: mathoverflow.net/questions/209373/…

Martin Sleziak

11:15 AM

Of course, MO is a completely different site with entirely different rules and recommendations. For example, even if something which slightly resembles PSQ/context-policy of mathematics exists in theory ("Do your homework" and "Provide background and motivation" are mentioned in MathOverflow FAQ), this is not done on MO in practice.

close-delete automaton

11:32 AM

@MartinSleziak FWIW I was referring to user21820's reply to @MikeMiller 's mention of MO policy

Martin Sleziak

Fair enough, I should have read the previous discussion more carefully. In any case, I wanted just to point out the (probably obvious) fact that not everything works the same on MathOverflow and on Mathematics.

close-delete automaton

11:48 AM

@MartinSleziak re chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/47965602#47965602 I thought it helpful to remind a few users of when they started out but in reality I have no major issues with those questions or their answers. But I wonder if everybody here now, would be here if their activity was treated differently when they first started out.

Martin Sleziak

BTW I see from your new username that you are planning to get to 10k reputation in the near future. :-)

user21820

12:39 PM

@close-deleteautomaton That post (before the edit) was originally an attempt at a proof. Yet I didn't vote to close it since I haven't read it carefully to see whether it was a good-faith attempt. I think it's undeniably a big waste of people's time to keep answering questions about attempts at open problems from users who lack basic mathematical knowledge. The MO post you linked is irrelevant to this discussion, for this very reason.

close-delete automaton

1:40 PM

@MartinSleziak Haha! I have a killer answer lined up, maybe I'll give it tomorrow.

@user21820 the point of the comment was that a) there is no such policy on MSE, and b) even when there's a policy it can make sense for it to be flexible if consenting people are getting something out of the site without causing too much harm to others then I see no reason to obstruct them.

The upvote / downvote mechanism is effective at bringing the cream to the top.

user21820

@close-deleteautomaton It is absolutely lousy. Anyone with sufficient mathematical expertise can see that there are many useless questions and answers that garner upvotes. I don't want to spend time on this, and anyway I wasn't asking for your opinion; I asked Xander and Mike because they said that even questions that show effort but are not of mathematical interest should not belong on the site.

2

close-delete automaton

@user21820 @user170039 @MartinSleziak @JyrkiLahtonen @AloizioMacedo @AlexanderGruber @MikeMiller @quid by the way if I ever come here and have a grumble (and I am Robert Frost usually) then please be assured it is said light-heardedly and in good spirits and I am never (or at least rarely) judging anybody or saying they acted in bad faith, unless I explicitly say so.

Because I appreciate all the good work you do and the effort you put in here. I may disagree on points of process and on certain behaviours but I just come into the lion's den knowing I may emerge later with a few scratches to poke something that doesn't look good to me, to see what noise it makes...

...and to determine whether actually I should be seeing it differently, or whether it should on the other hand be disturbed and interfered with.

It's easy on chat without the benefit of mannerisms, expressions and tone of voice to soften the tone, to take criticism personally or to feel threatened so for these reasons I think the assume good intent policy is an important one.

user131753

@close-deleteautomaton In which case please try to refrain from expressing your grumble in a form that may be misinterpreted otherwise.

close-delete automaton

@user170039 perhaps see my next comment which appeared the moment before yours addresses that.

quid

@close-deleteautomaton I am ,not all that sure there is more of a policy on MO than here; there are a couple of posts on the metas that concluded it. There rests is standing practice.

user131753

1:56 PM

@close-deleteautomaton I have seen that. But the point is: the issue of just how much good intent should be assumed varies from user to user.

close-delete automaton

@user170039 Anyway... I could call users in here a bunch of circle-jerking close-delete automatons like here chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/2165?m=47952476#47952476 and then I might not be so confident that you would take it with humour and good-spirits but I'm sure a good proportion of you would do so, and that is how it would be intended. In fact Jyrki's comment was funny and I took it that way.

but as it was not aimed at me perhaps it was easier to do so.

amWhy

Can we please stay within the topic of the chatroom?

6

user131753

I think we are probably going a bit off topic here. If anyone suggest any better place to continue this discussion, I am happy to go there.

user131753

Or temporarily you can come to my room General Chat with user 170039 @close-deleteautomaton.

quid

"But the point is: the issue of just how much good intent should be assumed varies from user to user." Does not at all to appear in line with earlier things coming form the same source. Well, I suppose it's good news that thinking evolves.

Sorry. I had not seen the call right before to stay on-topic. I'll leave it.

Holo

5:30 PM

horrible question

user21820

6:23 PM

PSQs up for deletion: 1, 2, 3.

José Carlos Santos

6:43 PM

@user21820 Done. Here are a few more PSQs: 1‌, 2, 3.

amWhy

@JoséCarlosSantos Running low on close votes; I have more delete votes to spare (though PSQ 1 is close to being open for deletion; I did vote to close it, and downvoted.)

José Carlos Santos

@amWhy Thanks.

amWhy

There is very likely a duplicate of PSQ on this site; but I could not quickly find it.

@JoséCarlosSantos PSQ 1 is closed, open for deletion. Needs one more delete vote.

José Carlos Santos

@amWhy I had already noticed it and casted a vote.

amWhy

@JoséCarlosSantos I figured the first was from you ;-). Basically just keeping others informed.

One more delete vote needed for a very poor question.

Outrageous claim to delete.

José Carlos Santos