I tried to upvote, and it didn't let me :(

Just for the record @amWhy, I don't think that this post is exactly a duplicate of the one you linked; they are definitely related, but the newer question is hung up on solving a system of linear equations

now, if there is a more canonical answer to "how do I solve a system of linear equations?" I am all for closing the question

I might look for a better dupe target later...

anywho... bedtime

@Did @amWhy @ZacharySelk @ProfessorVector: PSQs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Poor HNQ.

Stubborn PSQ poster (despite repeated advice): 1, 2.

How does a post like this PSQ get two upvotes? One came a mere 15 seconds after the question's submission!

Reopened post, no real improvement - math.stackexchange.com/questions/2694137/…

@CarlMummert I put in the bit of context that the asker provided in a comment. It isn't much but better there than not.

One-liner PSQ needs closure, before it picks up 3+ answers.

@MartinR One more close vote for this duplicate, original and duplicate posted by the same asker.

math.stackexchange.com/questions/2690524/… An answer with good intentions but lacking details

@user21820 Couldn't help but notice the letters in that asker's name. jjjaaa aaaaaa, and immediately interpret it as "jack-a*s"

@user21820 and also 3

Oops... @user21820 Strike my last comment. My "3" is your "2"!

@XanderHenderson Open for deletion now.

This duplicate question, -re-asked by the asker after their earlier question (the same) was put on hold, needs to be deleted (one more delete vote needed, after which we can deal as needed with the original question.

o/ @XanderHenderson

Hello. I'm not really here.

(@Xander) ( I take it you're working?)

Yup.

sort of, anyway

my advisor is leaving for sabbatical on Wednesday, and I have some things that I want to get to him before he leaves

I'm not quite sure what to make of this answer. It barely sketches the idea of a proof, and one of the three references cited appears to be the work of the answerer.

The 1999 PhD thesis of the answerer, in fact.

@XanderHenderson To me it's no better than a link only answer. The answerer states what they expect the OP to accept as fact, with no support as to why the statement holds.

Yeah, that was my impression, as well

PSQs: 1, 2, 3, 4

Any opinions on this one? There are already 4 close votes.

@MartinR I'll have to make sure to cast that last close vote in about 4 hours. I'm out of close votes until about then. :(

(Actually I find the answer even worse ...)

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, repeating characters in body: Independent Conditional Prob. by Oğuzhan Serçe on math.SE