This question just came across the review queue. It is not a super great question by today's standards, but it is old, marked community wiki, and has useful answers. I think that it is worth keeping around (in case it gets closed).

This question is worth examining.

@XanderHenderson I don't think it is a good idea to send amateurs trying to prove the Collatz conjecture in their spare time to MathOverflow and research journals for "proof verification."

Calculate $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}n^x (a_1.a_2......a_n)^{\frac{1}{n}}$? has been closed as a duplicate of If $\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n=\alpha$, show $\lim_{n\to\infty}(x_1x_2\dots x_n)^{1/n} =\alpha$.. That is also my fault, I cast the initial closing vote, but retracted it when Batominovski pointed out that it is not the same question.

Later, José Carlos Santos closed the question as a duplicate, apparently ignoring the previous comments. I think it should be reopened (at least not closed as a duplicate of the current target).

OK, it has been reopened again.

Can someone have a look at math.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/1044309? It looks to me as if the request to calculate a certain limit has been added to the question title and body, and is unrelated to the original question. (But it has been approved by a >100K user, so I must be overlooking something.)

@MichaelGreinecker No, probably not. The point that I was trying to make is that research mathematicians have their own organs for disseminating original work, and that MSE is not one of those organs. MSE is not a good place to publish original work.

math.stackexchange.com/q/2861614/29335 just... no

@rschwieb Reminds me of the slogan: "Just say no!"

One-liner-PSQ

Seems some folks serially upvote questions like the one I link to above.

FYI: This question is a duplicate. You'll see the duplicated target in a comment from below the question, from @MartinR

Why would you go to the effort of pasting in images when you can just TeX?!

Or, if that doesn't work, use html entities?

@XanderHenderson Why? Why do they do that!? (I agree!)

@amWhy For what it is worth, I fixed it (though I suspect that the question will be closed and deleted).

This question (which is being discussed on meta) is almost certainly a duplicate. One potential target is this question.

Or possibly this question?

$0.999\dots$ is ONE! OMG!

Hrm... I take it back. It is a slightly more interesting question than it first appeared to be. At least, it is not a straight up duplicate of the canonical version.

@XanderHenderson Unfortunately, it seems I received 3 downvotes all within 30 seconds of one another, for having linked the question here.

Too broad?

@amWhy People suck. :(

@XanderHenderson Yup, that's the reason I gave for my vote to close, on that question.

@XanderHenderson I wish I could give them all Popsicles so they can suck on some ice, and chill!! :/

@XanderHenderson I mean, I'm fine with solution/proof verification questions, but not when they're asking to have us verify a list of their answers to questions.

hey @XanderHenderson how are you bro?

can I discuss about conditional probability here?

Probably first read the description of this chat room, @hungryWolf.

@hungryWolf This chatroom would likely be better geared for your question/discussion.