Terrible post that the author did not fix despite the error being clearly pointed out in a comment.

@user21820: just curious, how do you maintain a long list of questions to be closed or deleted? Do you keep track of questions coming in review queue which you considered suitable for close/deletion but your vote was not sufficient to close / delete them? On phone keeping track of such things is a bit troublesome. I do however check for the pending deletes which are shown in the review system.

@ParamanandSingh There are already lists that provide an endless supply of poor questions:

> I once pinned these searches but they disappear from the star board after 2 weeks so I got lazy. I can repeat pinning them if anyone finds them useful.

@user21820 : Thanks for the above links. I will use them

Ok I guess let me pin them again. Give me a moment.

Probable Poor Questions Query

Closed Recent Questions

@user21820: and yes there is no dearth of poor questions (inspite of regular activity on CURED). That's probably the side effect of huge popularity of mathse.

@ParamanandSingh: Note that very few of those found by the CRQ query even show up in the review queues, and that is a major reason why site quality continues to decline (because PSQ producers get answers from PSQ farmers and don't care if it gets closed since they can make new accounts). Neither do posts found by the PPQQ query show up in the review queues; they have fallen through the cracks.

@user21820: I was under the impression that review queues are pretty much efficient in finding such questions, and the problem is paucity of reviewers. Thanks for enlightening me on this.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body (42): Contradiction between OEIS and factordb.com by hgut on math.SE

@SmokeDetector definitely not spam or an image of a problem. Maybe a PSQ, although it is hard to say what hgut should have done.

This question about the relationship between the limits of f(x)/g(x) and f(x) - g(x) had been closed as a duplicate of this one (with the help of a moderator). Later the question was reopened by a gold-badge holder. – It still seems to the that the questions (and the answers) are the same.

@supinf SD says "Link at beginning of body", so it's probably just a false positive for that trigger. Spam is highly correlated with this trigger, so it is not a bad test, even if it failed here. Though the post is somewhat lacking in context.

@MartinR: I closed it again.

@user21820 yes, i thought so. I think its a valid question, but the question can be improved. A contradiction between two seemingly authorative sources sounds interesting to me.

I didn't know gold badges give you this much power

@RRL OK, thanks.

D

@supinf I agree. I have not proven the primality, but very likely factordb contains an error that should be reported, since factordb is used by many users, I think. I can see nothing bad with this question.

I mean it is technically a PSQ, but if the asker is not sufficiently knowledgable, it might be hard to do anything.

Hm, he could have downloaded some software to test the number (it is not too big) , but I do not consider it to be a PSQ.

may I ask why you do the Fermat test with base 3 first and not with base 2? My knowledge is somewhat limited there...

I used PFGW for a quick answer and this base is default, it can of course be changed. I currently run a 5-base miller rabin test, but pari/gp takes some time to do this.

Finished! This increases the probability that the number is prime drastically. To be absolutely sure, we have to apply the p-1-method.

@supinf Maybe, the negative feedback has the reason that many people do not know factordb (OEIS is much more common) and are moreover not very interested in number theoretical questions. Maybe, an explanation what factordb is would have avoided the downvotes, but this is , I admit , speculative.

psq math.stackexchange.com/q/3948498/29335

Could we please consider undeleting this question? As I indicated before, there is a perfectly reasonable answer that could be considered pleasantly surprising. In addition, @quid seemed to think the question is fine.

@MarkMcClure Please don't argue from authority "quid seemed to think the question is fine." Provide an argument that isn't handed down from above.

DA, DB, DC, DD, DE, DF, DG, DH

DI, DJ, DK, DL

Thank you for your input @amwhy. As I indicated before, there is a perfectly reasonable answer that could be considered pleasantly surprising. More specifically, several users seem to think that all derivatives are easy simply because the differentiation rules are easy.

This comment and this answer, for example, make that argument.

These folks seem to be missing the point that the question is not about application of the differentiation rules but, rather, about differentiation when those rules aren't applicable. Thus, I would say that my answer is correct and, again, somewhat surprising to some others who answered incorrectly.

Incidentally, I pinged Quid in large part because he had already commented on the topic.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body (94): mathmetical errors commonalities ✏️ by xclineofh on math.SE