« first day (3621 days earlier)      last day (872 days later) » 

 
3 hours later…
3:34 AM
@TheSimpliFire Thanks!
 
 
1 hour later…
 
4 hours later…
9:30 AM
@amWhy Reposted here: math.stackexchange.com/q/4329795/42969. I am not sure if the new version is better.
 
 
2 hours later…
12:22 PM
 
12:45 PM
 
1:18 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] No whitespace in title, repeating characters in title (135): whskdjslkwlkjlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllj‭ by Darshan P.‭ on math.SE
 
 
2 hours later…
3:11 PM
@Peter Gone.
@Peter The following two D's have two downvotes, I cast the first delete vote on each. You did want to delete them, I trust?
^^^I've done what I can do, in any case, @Peter.
 
3:33 PM
@amWhy I forgot the delete-votes. Done now.
 
@Peter No problem! :-)
 
@amWhy deleted and damage limited. The full answer is annoying , but the user is apparently new here. Hope he/she won't do that again.
 
3:48 PM
@amWhy According to a comment, it has even be changed (I assume after answers occured , otherwise I do not think the comment would have been posted). This makes it even worse.
 
4:14 PM
@amWhy Two answers self-deleted. Still it should be closed.
 
@Peter I agree!
 
0
Q: Gram series in Riemann explicit formula for π(x)

VadimBased on Raymond Manzoni's answer https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2822928 we know that Gram series in sum over non-trivial zeros of zeta-function has a slow converging because of large x. And we know that general converging series for Ei[1] (exponential integral) looks very similar to Gram serie...

 
@Feeds I close-voted as "needs more focus". The author should show how the series improves the li(x)-approximation.
CD - in particular because it was answered after lulu told basically the whole story.
 
 
1 hour later…
6:09 PM
@Xander I have reviewed this post five times since it was posted yesterday.. It was closed as a dupe twice, and the OP keeps making superficial changes to send it to the reopen queue, yet again. I think it's time for SE to set limits on the number of trivial edits that send a post the the reopen queue, or just plain, a three strikes, you're closed for good.
^^^^^ timeline.
 
6:36 PM
^^^^ And yet again, in the review queue: math.stackexchange.com/questions/4329606/…
 
6:57 PM
In case mods are off for the weekend, we need one more delete vote here.
 
7:13 PM
Danke, @Xander ! On two accounts.
 
@amWhy 3 answers left
 
@Peter Thanks.
 
7:35 PM
 
@ArcticChar There's nothing there, @ArcticChar?
;P
 
I think that this can be closed as a duplicate of similar questions, e.g. math.stackexchange.com/q/2083953 Solve $\frac{1}{|x-2|} > 1$‭ - oomd1997‭ 2021-12-11 19:36:39Z
This is similar, too: math.stackexchange.com/q/1754625
None of these are exact duplicates, but they seem to have the same ideas. Contrary opinions? Votes to close?
 
@XanderHenderson Which is the question you are seeking to close?
^^^I got it, @Xander. The link after the first link, but before the last link?
 
I left links in the comments there. The close vote request generator creates confusing messages when trying to handle dupes. :/
Apologies for that.
 
No problem. I figured it out. I closed as a dupe, listing both dupe suggestions.
 
7:50 PM
@amWhy Groovy. Thanks.
 
Such questions can hide under "inequality", or under "algebra-precalc" so it can be different to locate them all.
 
I very nearly got nerd sniped into answering that question (as I have been writing exams this morning, and questions like that have come up).
 
@XanderHenderson I hear you. It's that time of year, indeed.
 
8:24 PM
D1, D2, D3.
D4, D5, D6.
D7, D8, D9.
 
8:42 PM
C1, C2 (Duplicate to each other)
 
8:57 PM
 
9:39 PM
Unless a duplicate can be found, it looks like this is ready for reopening.
 
@Shaun It remains a poor quality post.
 

« first day (3621 days earlier)      last day (872 days later) »