« first day (2998 days earlier)      last day (67 days later) » 

12:09 AM
Hola, @quid!
 
@amWhy hello
I thought I'd stop by here to see how it is going. At least on SE I am not confined to my own room. :-)
 
@quid Fair. Indeed! Quite a gift to have access to the internet in these times, especially for those of us who have pretty established interactions to keep up with. Might be a bit daunting for someone not
used to using the internet for anything more than googling :-)
@quid Can you give me a quick refresher for declaring an operator at the start of a post, that will be used frequently, so that one can use it repeatedly, without repeating \operatorname{operator}, but permits one to use just \operator, as needed in that post? For example I know one can declare "cancel" if one plans to use that in a post with fractions, etc.
 
@amWhy I should warn you that quality dupe closure is a lot of work, but there are ways to lighten the effort and make it more rewarding - both to you and the site. First, whenever you peruse a page that you think might later be of use as a dupe target ask yourself it it is easily locatable by search. If not, add keywords either to the title or answers. Also link heavily to related threads you know, specializations, generalizations, etc.
You'll find that in the process you'll gain much insight into how your subject matter is organized - knowledge that it often missing or implicit in textbooks. Making it explicit here helps others to understand the surprising and marvelous ways that various mathematical topics are interconnected. It also helps to make dupe closing much more rewarding (currently I spend much more time dupe closing than answering questions - alas more than I'd like)
 
12:25 AM
@amWhy The syntax is \DeclareMathOperator{NameOfCommand}{WhatIsDisplayed} It needs to be put in dollars. It's better to not have it at the very, very start.
 
:53921176 Not your fault, just amazingly bad timing for me. Thanks for moving it below.
 
No problem.
 
@BillDubuque Indeed, your work on dupes hasn't gone unnoticed!
@BillDubuque Thank you for the tips
@quid For example, say one is asking or answering a question in which "arcsec (x)" is used a dozen or more times. I get the \DeclareMathOperator part. For "NameOfCommand", I'd guess \arcsec, but I'm not sure what would be "WhatIsDisplayed" - would it be {\operatorname{arcsec}}?
 
@amWhy It would be much better if others contributed too. When only a few folks are doing this it introduces bias (even it one tries to avoid such), e.g. my view is more number theoretical than would be an algebraic geometer (or even an arithmetic geometer). So it would be helpful to encourage others to contribute to such. And when only a few are adding keywords it means that searches will only locate their posts (or those posts that they found of interest). We need more balance.
 
12:43 AM
@BillDubuque Great point, here. Also, I like your strategy of simultaneously helping to make posts more searchable. ("First, whenever you peruse a page that you think might later be of use as a dupe target ask yourself it it is easily locatable by search. If not, add keywords either to the title or answers.")
 
@amWhy If you have to, invent keywords (since tags only go so far), e.g. I use CCRT for the constant case of CRT, the "mod distributive law", "unique fractionization" etc and these have helped me (and others) locate various posts (and they also help emphasize the (logical) relationships between various results / ideas.
 
@BillDubuque Nice input; I'm already brainstorming with some "inventions of keywords" for help in searching in the realm of undergrad logic. I'll have to get up to speed with respect to searching and keywords, but I'm happy to take on the challenge!
 
@amWhy just "arcsec" (without the quotes).
If you want the standard font. If you want some other font you would specify that.
And actually for the command there is no backslash.
\DeclareMathOperator{cos}{cos} would give something that replicates the usual cosine command
 
@quid I just used the quotes to separate the term from my prose. In the comment thread below this answer, I had edited the post using $\operatorname{\arcsec} and the answerer wondered how laborious that could be if one needed to use it quite a bit in one's post.
 
12:58 AM
Thus it'd be for example \DeclareMathOperator{arcsec}{arcsec} but you can chose whatever you want for the name of the command.
 
@quid You knew what I was working on! Okay, would the formatter then just use $arcsec x$ to get $\arcsec x$ later in the post, or, under your example, would the formatter need to still use \arcsec x? I think I get what you mean.
 
@amWhy it's \arcsec(x) to get arcsec(x) just like for \cos to get cos.
If one prefers one could also chose a different name for the command say \DeclarMathOperator{as}{arcsec}. Then \as(x) yields arcsec(x).
It's then a trade-off how cryptic a command one wants to chose;
 
@quid Okay! I get it!
 
personally I think on this site one should use such things sparingly and in intuitive ways..
Thus, I'd prefer \arcsec here.
 
I agree, @quid. I agree. Kind of like coding: you want others to understand what you're doing, as much as possible.
 
1:07 AM
As alluded to above on can also combine it with font commands. Like \DeclareMathOperator{ZFC}{\mathsf{ZFC}}
 
@quid Oh, yes...that could be helpful. Can you remind me why I remember \require{cancel} or something like that when doing, say, arithmetic or algebra, and being explicit about canceling factors, e.g., in fractions or rational functions? I used it a lot in the past. I remember now...
@quid Oh, yes...that could be helpful. Can you remind me why I remember \require{cancel} or something like that when doing, say, arithmetic or algebra, and being explicit about canceling factors, e.g., in fractions or rational functions? I used it a lot in the past. I remember now.....
 
@amWhy that loads a package.
I am not sure that's the correct terminology.
 
@amWhy Here's an example in logic that I encountered today that may be up your alley. It's a common problem that beginners have doing inductive proofs of statements that are implications. Probably there are many examples of this logical "bug" but I don't know if anyone has named it or if there is any easy way to locate prior instances. Perhaps you do.
 
@quid Yes, I remember.
@BillDubuque I'll take a close look at it tomorrow morning (I arise about 4:00 am, so I'm fading out a tad in my focus). I enjoyed our exchange today, Bill!!
 
@amWhy Yes, it was quite enjoyable. Sweet (logical?) dreams (hopefully not dupes!)
 
1:17 AM
@BillDubuque haha... Indeed!
 
1:57 AM
@BillDubuque This question is likely a duplicate. It looks like it is up your alley---maybe you have a target top-of-mind?
 
 
7 hours later…
9:20 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Repeating characters in title (64): Problem xxxxxxxxxx by Sameer Annon Abbas on math.SE
 
 
8 hours later…
5:26 PM
PSQ with FGITW answer. How can I find this complex set?‭ - Aong Wa‭ 2020-03-28 17:09:16Z
 
@XanderHenderson answer is deletable...
 
 
1 hour later…
6:43 PM
@XanderHenderson Gone.
D1, D2, D3.
D4, D5, D6.
D7, D8, D9.
@amWhy: Most should be new this time.
C1, C2, C3.
C4, C5, C6.
C7, C8, C9.
 
@user21820 I'll have to address most of this D's tomorrow. I voted on 13 of D requests from RRL that I couldn't address with my votes yesterday. No problem in posting them; others likely have more available delete votes than I at this point.
 
@amWhy Sure, no hurry. I'm going through RRL's now.
@RRL DP to DT gone.
 
@user21820 Good to have a regular influx so I can use all my delete votes every day! So I'm glad you posted!
 
@RRL Gone except for DH and DL, which I did not vote on because they are borderline.
@RRL DA and DB need 1 more vote each. I ran out on those last 2!
@amWhy Thanks for your votes too!
 
7:00 PM
Also, for regular users in CRUDE, I'd recommend taking up, e.g., the "REOPEN" queue. It's the first line of defense against poor posts that were closed, then received a reopen vote, or more commonly, received a trivial edit, often not from the asker. If enough folks vote to "stay closed", it's booted from the review queue. Which makes it far more difficult for a bad post to get reopened. And helps combat folks who feel every answered question should be reopened.
 
Oho yet another revenge downvote came just after I processed RRL's requests.
Lol.
 
@user21820 Yeah, I live with the same, almost daily. As if that's going to trip me up!!
 
@amWhy I guess I'm going to have to answer some questions to get it back. Hahaha..
 
@amWhy Also note, in the "reopen queue," one doesn't need to use up close, delete, votes in the reopen, when focusing on voting "keep closed" to keep closed poor posts.
@user21820 Yeah... me the same, to make up for revenge downvotes, and the downvotes I regularly cast on a handful of answers!!
WRT the reopen queue, e.g., see this question that made it to the reopen queue due to a pathetic edit. There have been users on math.se, (one currently banned from the review queues), who have made a habit to vote to reopen crap.
 
RRL
8:05 PM
@user21820 @amWhy: Thanks
 
 
2 hours later…
9:57 PM
Close request. The shouting in this PSQ has left me temporarily deaf! math.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/1346628
 
@amWhy Did you post the correct link?
 
math.stackexchange.com/q/3599429/9003 No, I clearly did not provide the intended link, @Xander :(
 
:P
Yikes.
Did what I could.
The shouting is only the beginning. Protip: If your entire question does not fill even an entire line, then you have failed to provide adequate context.
Exception: you are Fermat, and have written your question in the margins.
 
@XanderHenderson "Yikes" is spot on! Thanks!
@XanderHenderson I agree, wholeheartedly, and yet we get an answerer shouting back an answer in a comment.
 
l'sigh...
 
10:08 PM
@XanderHenderson lol
 
The same asker has older questions which are similarly poorly written, though this appears to be the first instance of shouting.
 
@XanderHenderson Yikes
 
10:50 PM
This edit review comes very close to the beginnings of a recipe for a vodka sour. With the vodka and eggs, all we need now is some lemon juice and simple syrup.
 

« first day (2998 days earlier)      last day (67 days later) »