« first day (3301 days earlier)      last day (41 days later) » 

12:12 AM
@XanderHenderson Closure was probably the best option. Thanks!
 
@amWhy Thanks for the input.
I did manage to track down a physics mod, who felt it would get sent back.
 
@XanderHenderson Ah! All's well that ends well!
 
Next question: is there anything of value here? It has been suggested that the linked question be merged with the dupe target. Personally, I don't see much worth keeping, and would be just as happy to have the newer question deleted. :\
Do others have opinions?
 
@XanderHenderson Personally, I see nothing in the answers to the the new question that contributes anything to the already well answered target post, and it's a PSQ question, more or less. So I see no reason to merge, but instead, all the reason to delete it, but that may take some time (currently at 0 score.)
 
@amWhy That was kind of my opinion, as well. I'd like to get more feedback before acting, but my finger is on the delete button.
 
12:22 AM
@XanderHenderson Absolutely, get more feedback, but keep your finger on that button! ;D
 
 
4 hours later…
3:52 AM
@amWhy @JoséCarlosSantos: Thanks!
@XanderHenderson It's been deleted by the post author.
@XanderHenderson You can be the third deleter now.
 
 
8 hours later…
11:25 AM
A wrong answer that has been around since 2014!
 
11:53 AM
@JoséCarlosSantos It can be deleted now.
 
12:32 PM
Concerning physics stack exchange : I do not know their policies well , but I made an experience that made me leave this site forever : I asked , among some other questions , if a spaceship is followed by two ships with different relativity speed, WHICH ship we have to consider for calculating the mass (goal was to demonstrate issues with the special relativity theory). Result : negative votes followed by a warining of a possible ban , if I continue to ask such questions.
Apparently, only "main stream" questions are allowed on this site.
 
1:14 PM
@user21820 It was deleted when I was asleep. Huzzah. :\
I feel like we recently had a discussion on meta about whether or not yes/no "answers" were acceptable, even as CW. However, I cannot find that meta discussion. Does anyone else remember that happening?
 
1:56 PM
12
Q: Is it okay to give an answer with only "Yes" or "No" with no further details supporting the conclusion?

ZurielI came across this question and so far the answer with only three letters "Yes" received 50+ upvotes. The answer contains no details, shows no research effort and cites nothing; but it is well received! In general, is it okay to give an answer a question with only "Yes" or "No" with no further d...

@XanderHenderson Do you mean this one?
 
@MartinR Yes! That's the one. Thank you!
 
2:57 PM
@Peter Without seeing your question, we cannot judge the response to your question. But there is certainly no issue with special relativity, so surely you made a mistake somewhere in your 'demonstration'.
 
this links to youtube, then says "This lecture was so good. but My understanding is not good." :D
 
3:18 PM
@TheSimpliFire Hi
 
I left a comment here because I am not sure if the closure as a duplicate is correct. Any opinions?
I wonder if this question is really a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/q/606172/42969. Here $x_{n-1}+2x_{n}$ is assumed to have a limit, in the other question it is $x_{n-1}-2x_{n}$. Are these problems equivalent in the sense that one can easily be transformed into the other? Am I overlooking something simple? — Martin R 1 min ago
 
@MartinR I think, everyone should admit that such "upvotes to heaven" are ridiculous, but what do you suggest to stop them ?
 
@Peter I am sorry but I don't know what upvotes you are referring to. I asked about a question which had been closed as a duplicate and whether it should be reopened. Am I misunderstanding something?
 
3:41 PM
I mean the answer "yes"
@user21820 What I posted here is basically the question. If you carefully read it and know the claims of the special relativity, you will notice the issue.
 
@Peter I know special relativity, and there is no issue. You didn't say what you mean by "calculating mass", and without any further context it is meaningless because mass is meaningful in each specific reference frame (but differs from frame to frame), but you have not specified a reference frame. Anyway that's off-topic here so if you would like to continue let me know and I can move it to another chat-room (say the sandbox).
 
4:10 PM
No, I do not want to continue this discussion. I only wanted to point out what kind of site physics-stack exchange is. If you know this theory, then you didn't read my post, otherwise the issue would become obvious.
 
 
4 hours later…
8:11 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in answer (88): Probability that $n$ random walks (1D) intersect a single point by Abigubude on math.SE
 
 
2 hours later…
9:50 PM
unnecessary duplicate, please delete.
 
10:09 PM
@MartinR @AmWhy: Do you mind if I ask why you voted to leave this question closed? Is it because you think it is a duplicate (which I am not sure about as I said in a comment) or is it because you doubt the quality of the question, or perhaps for some other reason?
 
@MartinR It's a poor quality question.
 
10:23 PM
@MartinR I vote to reopen questions that are good questions (that are not dupes), not those that should have perhaps been closed for other reasons. Whether or not the question is or isn't a dupe, but it is now designated as a dupe target, did not enter into my decision. I do not think the question was of sufficient quality to reopen.
 
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Repeating characters in title (66): i need help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by Matthew Mejia on math.SE
 
10:42 PM
@MartinR I didn't realize until now that you answered the very question you sought to have reopened. Perhaps you were right about it not being technically a dupe, but it was a poor question, essentially a PSQ. Please in the future, when you solicit users here to reopen a question you answered, be more transparent that you answered the question.
 
@amWhy You are right. I usually do that but for some reason did not add a “disclaimer” here. Perhaps I assumed that those who look at the Q&A notice it. Please accept my apologies. – I understand your reasoning for keeping the question closed. Unfortunately it is also the duplicate target of this one and I am not aware of another (better) duplicate target. Is is worth trying to improve the question, or is no action needed?
 
@MartinR To pile on a bit, I agree that the question isn't that great. My usual flow-chart is to first ask if a question is of sufficient quality to keep around, and then determine whether or not it is a duplicate. Hence my preference would be that the question be closed for quality.
That being said, I think that the dupe target is, in an abstract sense, a good target, and don't care to see the question reopened so that it can be quality-closed.
Finally, neither of the questions being discussed really strikes me as being of much quality, but they are both old enough that it doesn't seem unreasonable to keep them on the site, but closed.
That is, I see no pressing reason to take any action on any of those questions (close, reopen, delete, or otherwise).
@MartinR I added the oldest question to the list of dupes---that seems like a reasonable action to take.
 
11:00 PM
@XanderHenderson My original point was that math.stackexchange.com/q/1823080 and math.stackexchange.com/q/606172 are different questions. They look similar but I don't see how one problem transforms into the other easily. – But never mind, I'm not going to pursue this any further..
 
@MartinR I agree that they are different questions, but I don't see how they are significantly different on an abstract level. It seems to me that any similar question about $x_n + c x_{n-1}$ should have a similar answer.
Of course, that is after only a cursory glance at the questions, so I'd be happy to admit error.
 
@XanderHenderson I'll think about that later (it is after midnight here).
 

« first day (3301 days earlier)      last day (41 days later) »