@MikeMiller Thanks for having checked.

Close PSQ; Delete D1,D2 and D3

For closure: c1

For deletion: d1, d2, d3,

d4, d5

@Did @RRL @Saad @amWhy @XanderHenderson: Very poor answer does not point out the glaring error in the asker's proof, unlike the other answers.

@amWhy Up for deletion.

@Saad All gone except (d3), which is borderline in my opinion since there is some effort there.

@Did @amWhy @RRL @Saad: Up for deletion: A, B, C.

@user21820 Basically the post goes like this: “I want to solve A. I know B, but how to solve A?” Here A and B are pertinent to the same mathematical being, but they deal with completely different aspects. For a clearer example, A = “number of zeros of some function f on [0, 1]”, B = “the integral of f on [0, 1] is positive.”

B is too random and irrelevant to be considered as an effort for A.

@Saad Okay I had not read carefully. It's worse than your analogy, because the question gives "∀x∈R ( ¬P(x)⇒Q(x) )" but the asker wrongly 'uses' it to claim "Q(1)⇒¬P(1)".

@user21820 Only A remains, in need of one more delete vote. (I had already cast the first delete vote.) B and C are gone.

@amWhy Thanks!

@user170039 Esthetics. From the moment when Don Knuth offered TeX to the world, mathematical texts can be typographically beautiful relatively effortlessly...

d6

… and d7, d8

@user170039 Dunno what you mean exactly by permissible. Anyway, the idea is that if the OP (for some unfathomable reason) object, they just have to revert the edit. Most frequently they do not, some are even thankful.

@Did Was that a deliberate typo? I'm not aware of the word "esthetics". =)

d9

@user170039 As far as I can tell, the consensus is that trivial edits are acceptable if the question is not too old (e.g. if the question is still on the front page, it is not a bad idea to make a small edit). People seem to object most to new users who make a large number of trivial edits to old questions.

@user170039 No. Do you have any particular meta post in mind when you assert that "[You] I had a different idea regarding making trivial edits and whether it is really allowed to make such."?

Like I said as far as I can tell, trivial edits are typically considered fine so long as you are not bumping some long dead question with your edit.

Up for deletion

Edits are supposed to be substantive, but small edits aren't on the mods' radar unless they're disruptive (e.g. being done consistently or in large batches, being used to repeatedly bump a post, or to game rep)

@AlexanderGruber I apply the same rationale in the "suggested edit" review queue, in part because an accepted suggested edit awards the suggested editor 2 pts. I've seen very trivial edits, and occasionally 5 separate consecutive edit suggestions, each rather trivial on their own, all by one user on the very same post. Title, adding $$ instead of $ at each end, changing a "numbered list" to a Mathjax numbered list, adding one comma, etc..

delete 1, 2, 3

delete 4, 5, 6

delete 7, 8, 9

@amWhy been thinking about this. On the issue of a post not showing it was ever closed, I think that is ok, since questions are supposed to be reopened only when the problem has been fixed and the question is purportedly up to the site's standards. In that case, I don't see what function keeping the previous closure around as a scarlet letter would have.

(Granted, this assumes no disagreement over community standards, which isnt true on math.SE, but flagging would probably be the best way to deal with that sort of open/close war.)

@user170039 Please don't judge an edit trivial until you spend a month (each day of a month) reviewing suggested edits in the "suggested edits review queue". Then you'll see what a trivial edit really looks like.

delete 10, 11, 12

About the asymmetry of closing vs reopening showing names, I haven't figured out my opinion there. I see what you mean- certainly it is asymmetric.

delete 13, 14, 15

@Lord_Farin For (3), the asker posted his/her own solution as an answer.

The one thing I can say pretty much for certain though is that it is unlikely to change, since doing so would require network wide software changes, which have not historically been easy to push to SE

@AlexanderGruber I understand that rationale. The same reasoning applies to users who vote to close a question, whose names are brandished below the on-hold/closed question, visible to all who read the question subsequently, like a scarlet letter on each of five close-voters, and after which those close-voters are targeted by downvotes and other forms of retaliation. Either list both close-voters and reopen voters below the respective question, or either. I'm simply asking for parity.

"or neither." is what I meant to say. Identify one group immeditately below the affected question, then identify the other below said question below the affected question. Do not identify one group in such a way, then don't identify the other in such a way.

@amWhy I agree entirely. In the question history, one ought to be able to find out who closed or reopened a post, but there is no reason for it to be shown on the front page.

Instead of showing that a question was "Closed by [list of users]," why not indicate that the question was "Closed by members of the community because..."?

Again, one can still go looking for the names of the closers (if one cares) by looking at the post timeline.

duplicate In keeping with @Did's message in the sidebar (starred three times and pinned), this question linked in that message is eligible for deletion, save for the fact that it serves as the duplicate target for at least one other post. I propose we delete any subsequent duplicate if they are poorly asked, and if any of those marked as duplicate of this post are better questions, that we aim to make the poor post linked here

@user21820: Thanks for pointing out about (3). I voted to undelete and reverse my delete vote.

... a duplicate of any subsequent better-asked "duplicate".

Yet another crank attacking Cantor's diagonal proof.

@JoséCarlosSantos Downvoted, and flagged

@Holo Thanks.

But FYI in judging the "candidate query" I always try to see if some posts deserve improvement rather than deletion. But it is clear that all posts in the query deserve action in either direction.

Not an answer

Another

@JoséCarlosSantos voted to delete; one more delete vote needed.

@Holo Gone

@amWhy Thanks

@Holo voted to delete and downvoted.

Thanks again

@JoséCarlosSantos Flagged and commented.

Perhaps we need a crank-magnet tag on the main site, for those that dispute Cantor, or want to make everything a fractal, or some such. ;)

@XanderHenderson Indeed! :/

@XanderHenderson I bet the tag description could include "Please add this tag to any of the following tags: collatz, fractals, cantor, riemann-hypothesis, ... ". I envision at least a dozen or two of such tags to which crank-magnet would be appropriate.

Ha!

@amWhy (didn't know until just now that "parity" had a meaning outside of mod 2-- cool!)

@amWhy You should meta SE about it. As I said, I have doubt that SE will move forward with it since it necessitates code changes, but it's a good request.

@AlexanderGruber Ha! To me, outside of even/odd integers, parity is to symmetry what disparity is to asymmetry, more or less. Or parity requires "do unto "close-voters", as ye would do unto "reopen-voters" and likewise, "do unto reopen-voters, as ye would do unto close-voters", and still another example: parity can be likened to fairness, in the sense that whether one votes to close or to reopen, one should have equal protection under SE policy, as they have had they voted to reopen or to close.

@AlexanderGruber I'm still trying to search meta.se to check whether it's been asked before, or anything like it. Just trying to determine the best key-words and tags to use in such a search.

My guess would be that when this feature was being designed, the designers were looking to show off the "moderation is by the community" axiom of the SE platform, and hadn't yet experienced that retaliatory downvoting can be difficult to regulate.

It might be good to ask if this is an issue on other SE sites that have CRUDE-like rooms / triage systems

@AlexanderGruber You're probably right on that.

@AlexanderGruber Indeed.

@amWhy maybe it would be telling to see whether the timing of downvotes was correlated with having recently closed many questions

the name stays visible as long as the question is up, but it's most visible when the question is most active, which is when it's recent. So this effect of showing names of closers does attract downvotes, one would expect there to be a correlation there

@AlexanderGruber It would be great to use site analytics to help determine whether any correlation exists, or does not exist. I'm just not very "in the know" as to how to use that tool. But "retaliation" against close voters also occurs via a complaint on meta, seeking sympathy, and often naming close voters of a "great question", by the askers and answerers alike. Such posts often frame the situation incorrectly, characterizing close-voters as "bullies", ...

@amWhy yeah, i have no idea how to do it either. We'd need either somebody really good with data explorer, or a higher-up in SE.

And certain community members often respond by upvoting and/or reopening the closed question, and/or downvote or ridicule any close-voter's answers to meta, or comments.

This "answer" by the asker to their own question is not an answer; it is really just another question (proof/solution verification: "Am I right? If not please give references and tell me why not?) that should have been an edit to their question. (See my comment below the linked answer).

^^^^^ @JoséCarlosSantos, @Did, @user21820, @RRL, Please see my most recent link in my most recent message above.

@amWhy It's gone now.

@JoséCarlosSantos Thanks! @Did Thanks!

@AlexanderGruber Actually, I think asking a "higher-up" in SE, like @Shog9, is a great idea, because if the current status of all SE sites is the listing of close-voters below on on-hold/closed question, but identifying reopen voters only on the post's time-line, then my question may be relevant across the SE network, likely most relevant on sites with some sort of triage or mechanism/chatroom like CRUDE serves math.se.

@amWhy and if the data shows the effect is significant, that would be the best way to support a call for change.

@AlexanderGruber Indeed.

@user21820, @Did, @RRL, @JoséCarlosSantos open for deletion