« first day (3094 days earlier)      last day (37 days later) » 

12:20 AM
@user21820 This answer came up in review.. I think that it is nonsense, but the answerer seems to be drawing some kind of mathematical/philosophical line which I don't have the expertise to evaluate (though the citation to a Shaum's outline really makes me worry). I know that you are expert in logic---is the answer meaningful in any way?
 
 
1 hour later…
1:30 AM
@MartinSleziak how do we move messages?
 
@sai-kartik Only room owners can move messages.
If you are a room owner (you aren't here), the "room▼" menu contains a "move messages" option. The interface is more-or-less intuitive (click the messages you want to move, type the name of the room you want to move them to (there is autocomplete), execute).
 
 
3 hours later…
4:46 AM
This question was deleted by the OP shortly after I provided an answer. I think the answer might be useful to some so I'd like to request undelete votes. math.stackexchange.com/questions/3739931/…
 
@metalspringpro I have voted to undelete the question on the grounds that it is inappropriate to delete a question after you have received an answer. That being said, the question is of quite low quality. In the future, perhaps consider skipping such questions, and focus on those questions where the asker has put some time in.
 
5:11 AM
@XanderHenderson I agree with you here, and will aim do that. In this case, I was unsure of the answer before thinking about it a bit and become intrigued by it.
 
 
6 hours later…
 
3 hours later…
2:05 PM
@rschwieb Open for deletion
 
2:25 PM
For closure:
math.stackexchange.com/q/3730622
For deletion:
math.stackexchange.com/q/3721082
math.stackexchange.com/q/3736124
 
3:13 PM
@user21820 I dunno, I think a key feature of LI battery explosions is the part where you scramble to shed your flaming pants, and thankfully I don't think that has to happen often on math.se
 
 
2 hours later…
5:45 PM
someone please put this question out of its misery math.stackexchange.com/q/3742817/29335
I've found some duplicates, just not very strong ones
 
@rschwieb I'm not sure that we need yet another duplicate of "what is $i$, really?!", particularly one which offers essentially zero evidence of independent thought or research. I voted to close for lack of context.
Note also that the question has been answered by a user who has essentially said that their goal is to disrupt the SE model:
@XanderHenderson I regard this "model" as the fundamental problem in education. Academia has been overrun by people who think the question is more important than the asker. When a freshman asks a question in Calc 1, the most likely result is a lecture on why the question should have been worded differently. By the time the TA is done babbling, the kid isn't interested in the answer any longer. Yes, this is the SE model, but then, SE fired Monica, so screw 'em. I'll do what I please. — B. Goddard 5 hours ago
 
6:05 PM
@XanderHenderson Anyway, what they describe is a false characterization of the model in education, and the model on math.se. So their desire is to disrupt what they falsely perceive as existent models. False premise leads to nonsensical "justifications" for answering PSQ's and unclear questions. But me thinks they concoct bogus justifications in order to do what they want to do, not what is best on this site.
2
 
@XanderHenderson I agree but was erring on the side of leniency. Closed for whatever reason suffices.
 
6:17 PM
@amWhy Yup.
Yet their comments are getting upvoted.
I wonder if consensus is changing.
Perhaps it is time to be done with Math SE.
 
6:40 PM
@XanderHenderson I hear you!I wonder the same. But I think there are just a handful of users that hate quality control, and that they make most of the noise on main and on meta, and they deliberately go out of their way to upvote each others posts and comments. They lound, but I don't think they are many.
 
@amWhy Perhaps. The last couple of days have been extremely frustrating.
 
Well, in a case like this, in a society like ours, it's easy to see why indignant railings against some perceived injustice get upvotes.
 
@amWhy, the 199k number below your avatar is missing and it hurts ಥ_ಥ
 
@XanderHenderson I agree wholeheartedly, and yet I'm the only one told to "cool down for a week". That's a problem in itself.
@Arjun lol :-)
 
Righteous indignation is attracting upvotes, but they are not "quality upvotes"
2
 
6:46 PM
@amWhy To be fair, one of the other commenters was told to take a break.
There is another who I think should take a break, but I'm not in charge. :\
 
@rschwieb Or "illusionary righteous indignation is attracting upvotes, but they are not "quality upvotes."
5
@XanderHenderson I guess I don't know who that is, because there is one user both you and I confronted on meta, that should have had a time out, as well.
 
7:44 PM
@XanderHenderson Always remember that comment-vote-evaluation is muddled by the inability to downvote comments :)
 
@rschwieb Dat SOOOO True! Good point!
 
@rschwieb Indeed.
 
8:08 PM
@XanderHenderson Well, I suppose I'm done in that thread now. Didn't take long to get one of them to show their real colors. Either a 3-month expert or a veteran in disguise.
2
 
@rschwieb Oi, vey. I take one phone call...
 
@XanderHenderson It is meaningful only to those who know what is happening, and the fact that you cannot make sense of it strongly suggests that an average layman will not either. For your reference, most people use "↔" as a logical symbol internal to the FOL theory, and "≡" as an external relation stating tautological or provable equivalence.
So if we say "A↔B" we are stating (inside a theory) that A is equivalent to B, but if we say "A≡B" then we are stating (in the meta-system) that A is provably equivalent to B, or sometimes that they are defined to be equivalent. As for "⇔", some people use it as a synonym of "↔" while others use it as a synonym of "≡" with the above-stated meanings. So it would be bad for an answer to say so confidently this or that without knowing the context.
 
8:27 PM
@user21820 Groovy. Thanks for the feedback.
Your explanation makes sense. Yay!
 
 
1 hour later…
9:46 PM
I love your comment here, @JyrkiLahtonen. Consider it +1'd by me, to be added in six days!!
 

« first day (3094 days earlier)      last day (37 days later) »