@BillDubuque Sorry but your opinion is completely wrong. Indeed I reopened the question when the duplicate wasn't valid since it didn't refer to a solution by l'Hopital. Moreover recall that the "name calling" the you and many of the users use here, often as a defamatory action, is against our CoC therefore I'm forced to flag those abuse to moderator's attention. I warmly invite you to stop with that. Regards

@BillDubuque I can't agree with deletion, the question is well posed and many interesting answers were given. I hope it will be reopened.

@user You must be confusing me with someone else since I don't engage in such activities here. In fact I disagree with the majority of actions in this room (only on dupes is their some common ground).

@user21820 Please explain what you believe needs to be "fixed" and why it is "broken" pedagogically.

cv-pls real-analysis Missing context or other details Infinite product and limits‭ - ajaaaaaa‭ 2019-11-22 22:16:19Z

cv-pls reference-request Opinion Based; maybe appropriate for MESE? Is the choice of textbook really that important?‭ - Ling Min Hao‭ 2019-11-23 03:24:49Z

@BillDubuque I'm not confusing you with someone else indieed I'm referring to a your comment posted here. I don't know what you like to engage or not, what you disagree with or not, I'm really not interested in that or in your person. I've just indicated and flagged a violation of our CoC by your comments and comments by other users in this chatroom.

@BillDubuque I'm just inviting you and also other users to stop with this uncorrect behavior and diverted use of the chatrooms. If you like close let close, if you like delete let delete but you can't be offensive with other users. Regards

Discussion: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3447107/…

@user Why do you bother? You never check for dupes, so you have no right to complain. Hint: proper checking for dupes takes 20 minutes or so. You often post homework answers quite a bit faster. And sometimes many in a span that more responsible answerers take time checking for a single duplicate.

And, why don't you begin to follow rules of the site. And stop answering PSQs and dupes.

@JyrkiLahtonen Sorry but I've not intention to engage in useless discussions. I often post relevant duplicates in order to give some good reference to the asker. What is relevant here is that your own ideas on the "healthing" for the site do not allow you to force other users must have your same ideas and do not allow you to offend other users with false accusations.

It is not a volation of CoC to disagree with your gold badge closure. Please be more careful about making false accusations like "name calling" and "defamatory" etc. There is nothing of the sort in my comments you linked to.

^^^ Or course I meant "gold badge reopen" above.

@BillDubuque Please pay attention. I'm not referring to a violation of CoC for the reopen/closure issue for this one I've indeed stated: "Sorry but your opinion is completely wrong. Indeed I reopened the question when the duplicate wasn't valid since it didn't refer to a solution by l'Hopital". So your claim is false but not defamatory in that case. Be more careful in reading comments.

@BillDubuque For the "volation of CoC", "name calling" and "defamatory" issues the relevant comment is the one I'm replying here and the subsequent one. Please adopt a more convenient and respectful behaviour in the future. Regards

@user My attention is fine. Again, I see nothing of the sort in the comments that you link. It seems you are making false inferences based upon misinterpretations of comments of others. If something is not perfectly clear then it is much more constructive to ask for clarification.

@user Nor do I agree that it is a volation to Coc to express the opinion that massive duplication of FAQs is one of the primary factors "killing" the site. I've stated such countless times here and on meta and this is the first I've ever heard anyoneobject that way.

@user In any case, if you read my comments carefully you will see that they refer to general issues. It is not unusual that discussion of general issues is sparked by specific instances.

@user There is nothing false in the accusation/defamation "if gimusi can answer it, it's a dupe". A) you answer at least 10 duplicates per day, B) you never answer anything above freshman level. Both of these can be substantiated.

Worth emphasis: Jyrki's prior comment is hypothetical, i.e. they are not claims made in my comments that "user" refers to. My comments concern only the general problem of the highly detrimental effects mass duplication.

@JyrkiLahtonen Generally, I'm only concerned with the (massive) duplication - not the "level" of the answers. As a general level site we need excellent answers at all levels. Even those who have limited knowledge can still provide excellent answers at their level of knowledge. Your arguments will be much better received if they don't exhibit such bias against lower level content.

Rather, I think it is more constructive to focus on the quality of the answers - independent of the level.

@BillDubuque Correct. My subconscious brought up the level of his answers. Possibly as a reaction to "killing math". My subconscious is a scary place. I should not dig too deep in there too often.

del-pls real-analysis Duplicate (No Roomba: accepted answer) Using L'Hopital Rule on $\lim_{x \to \infty} \left( \frac{x}{1+x} \right)^x$‭ - jeffery_the_wind‭ 2019-11-17 14:19:39Z

@BillDubuque Its last paragraph explicitly says that x^0 = x^n/x^n = 1. This is false for x = 0. Even if that is fixed, it is pedagogically nonsense because x^0 is not defined as x^n/x^n, nor is it right to invoke the exponents 'laws' in order to justify the value of x^0...

@JyrkiLahtonen If only the gamification was more universal - then we could vote on (SE's claims about) who is "killing math". One of my platform designs explored the idea of everything being a first-class object so subject to community feedback. Maybe we could even vote on your subconscious too... meta level introspection on steroids....

But that would truly be a "scary place" ... your subconscious has been closed as off-topic and will soon be deleted.

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12.

@user21820 I disagree. In fact that is a one if the best ways of motivating the extension of powers to to zero and negative exponents from an algebraic perspective - a special case of universal principles. I tried to explain that in elementary language here

P.S. The accepted answer is quite poor in my opinionm but I suppose that's not surprising since given the tags it is likely that most readers were calculus students had little udea of the underlying ideas (that are at the foundation of abstract algebra)

P.S. The accepted answer there is quite poor in my opinion. But I suppose that's not surprising since - given the tags - it is likely that most readers were calculus students so had little idea of the general algebraic principles at the heart of the matter ... aargh, can't delete prior draft...this software is horrible.

Worth remark: in other contexts such adjunctions and extensions need not be unique, e.g. there are various ways to adjoin 1 to a rng (ring without one). The well-known Dorroh extensions doesn't preserve various ring theoretic properties that are crucial in some contexts.