4, 5, 6

@AlexFrancisco 5 was just reopened.

On the one hand, I appreciate that Cameron Buie sought to improve an abandoned question with a couple of reasonably good answers. On the other hand, the question is way to broad, and the edits seem over the top. Better ask a new question (or three?).

7, 8, 9,

10, 11, 12,

13, 14, 15

Hello, @quid!

hello @AlexFrancisco

I came here for the "zero" question.

@quid No zero cuz I keep it positive :)

Good. Do you have strong feelings about that question being closed? I'd tend to leave it open now after the improvement. But I wanted to check what you think.

@quid Which one?

The one you numbered 5, which is about properties of zero.

@quid In short, it has three questions in one post, and answers to all of them can be found in any related books.

So no need to keep it open.

@AlexFrancisco the first is a valid concern, the second is true for most questions I suppose.

Besides if the idea is to build a repository of q&a I think the question "Is zero a prime number" does belong there.

@quid For the second reason, related books are easily accessible and even elementary.

This causes unnecessary redundancy in repository.

@AlexFrancisco could you provide some examples?

Plus, if we exclude everything that is is many books, we will exclude many things.

If the question is a dupe on this site, then the situation would be different of course.

But the answer(s) seem(s) relatively good.

@quid Like this? For your reasoning, well, the site already has almost 1m questions so excluding one doesn't matter, IMHO.

@quid Even though answers are of good quality, there's no need to add more after so many good ones.

@AlexFrancisco that's a non reason.

@AlexFrancisco that's parity not primeness. (But indeed it is answered elsewhere, but I see little reason not to have out copy.) The argument with the number of questions is a bit unusual.

@quid It seems that no further contribution does discussing such elementary questions repeatedly have, nor does it inspire new insights into frontiers of mathematics (except for genius, I guess).

Also I wonder if such questions are better for Mathematics Educators site or MO?

@AlexFrancisco the idea is not to discuss anything, the idea is to have one standard post about it on the site. If you know a better one please bring it up.

@AlexFrancisco why would it? It is not a question about teaching mathematics and it is not a research level question. It is just fine on this site.

The three questions in one is a valid concern but I think it is tolerable and hard to fix now.

@quid I'm not intended to delete that post and co closure is fine. But is it even possible to split a post into three and migrate answers to each corresponding one?

@AlexFrancisco no it's not possible to do that.

@quid I said so cuz the questions seems more like asked by students first knowing related concepts, i.e. parity and primeness. Maybe teachers have more illuminating explanations.

@AlexFrancisco that's not what those sites are for.

MESE is for questions asked by teachers, mostly. MO is for questions asked by researchers, mostly.

@quid Oh, thanks for explanation for that…

You are welcome;

math.stackexchange.com/questions/2832527/… @amWhy @Did @user21820 @XanderHenderson complete nonsense

@ZacharySelk Surprise (Not!) that some specific someone jumped in to answer the question... incorrectly.

@amWhy Again a surprise that close vote number 1 was the same said user

@ZacharySelk hahahahaha!

@quid I am in favor of closing the zero question (number 5 in the list) for being too broad.

The question "Is zero prime?" is one that I think belongs.

The question "Is zero prime? is it even? is it even a number?" does not belong.

Most of the answers to that question attempt to most of those questions, which makes it a little difficult to work out where the relevant bits are to any one part of that list of questions.

Would it be reasonable to create a community wiki question, and bring over the best answers?

PSQ.

@AlexFrancisco: By the way, are you aware of this automated list that catches all too-short posts? Almost all of them are PSQs.

@user21820 OFD

@amWhy Took me a few seconds to figure that acronym out! =)

...Open for deletion

@user21820 You beat me to posting it!

I am curious, @ChristianBlatter: how many times is it permissible to open a new question in order to clarify answers to an old question before we should start closing such questions as duplicates?

(For the rest of the room, this question is the source of my question.)

@user21820 @amWhy @ZacharySelk @AlexFrancisco @others This question is a duplicate of this question. The newer question as created because the OP was unsatisfied with the answers to the older question (near as I can tell, no details were added to the new question in order to justify its existence).

@ZacharySelk 'tis gone!

@XanderHenderson Looks like last time around, the question appeared in the HNQ. Let's hope it doesn't end up there a second time.

Honestly, I think that it is a good question (indeed, if it weren't a duplicate, I would prefer the new version to the old version). I just don't see how the new question asks for anything that wasn't asked for in the original question. There are tools available for getting better answers---users should be using those tools first. :\

PSQ.

Oh: I've just noticed an attempt in the comments.

@Shaun But it is the responsibility of the questioner to put the attempt in the question (since comments are ephemeral).

Are new askers this clueless? (see question, and response to my question) I need to prove foo. (What is your question?) I need to prove foo. ...

@XanderHenderson @amWhy @user21820 math.stackexchange.com/questions/1796071/… this answer is completely unrelated to the question

Anyway, the link I provide in my last comment reveals a "new user" who seems to know mathjax. Doubt it's a new user afterall.

Open for deletion