« first day (3618 days earlier)      last day (42 days later) » 

12:04 AM
D1, D2, D3
D4, D5, D6
D7, D8, D9
1:11 AM
@Peter The SE overlords determined that deletion wars are bad (I agree), and "solved" the problem by making it impossible for a user to vote-to-delete more than once. It is hard to say that this is the "right" solution, but I also find it hard to suggest an alternative.
And it sounds like the UI change was done badly.
That is, it is too easy to accidentally retract a deletion vote.
1 message moved to Mathematics
1:43 AM
@XanderHenderson Amen!
2:27 AM
3 hours later…
5:17 AM
Q: On the inequality $I(q^k)+I(n^2) \leq \frac{3q^{2k} + 2q^k + 1}{q^k (q^k + 1)}$ where $q^k n^2$ is an odd perfect number

Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris(Note: This post is an offshoot of this earlier MSE question.) Let $N = q^k n^2$ be an odd perfect number with special prime $q$ satisfying $q \equiv k \equiv 1 \pmod 4$ and $\gcd(q,n)=1$. Define the abundancy index $$I(x)=\frac{\sigma(x)}{x}$$ where $\sigma(x)$ is the classical sum of divisors o...

Q: Is my conjecture about multiplicative hashing of Huffman codes true?

splicerLet's say you're given a set of Huffman variable-length codes where the length of each code is <= Q bits. Zero-pad the right-hand side of each code by Q - the code length (i.e make all the codes Q bits in length). If there are N codes, is it true that there exists a positive integer M such that f...

4 hours later…
9:39 AM
1 hour later…
10:41 AM
This question is not duplicate and hence I request you people to vote to reopen it: math.stackexchange.com/questions/4327292/…
1 hour later…
12:00 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at end of answer (61): Advantage of Bernstein polynomial basis‭ by Basit‭ on math.SE
12:26 PM
Does anybody think this question lacks context?
Personally : it feels borderline closable , and it's been answered in the comments so I fear someone could copy that as an answer, but I'd like to know who is on what side of the border.
12:48 PM
@TeresaLisbon The general problem : Since context is expected , many users work out detailed what they tried, for me still the proper way to ask a question. The only catch is that, if the trial is correct, it is difficult to give a useful answer. Maybe, there is an easier approach that can be shown in an answer.
For me there is no reason for a closure.
1:06 PM
@Peter Thanks, I will probably retract this request. In fact, I planned to answer the question, but I want to have this "squeaky clean" closure record, because I share my answers with some non-site users (who don't have accounts but follow my answers : I don't get stray votes often) and I want to be able to help them understand, whenever they need to join, what kind of questions to answer and what not to.
@Peter I also disagree with the rule that retracting close/delete-votes is permanent, but if that's the rule and nobody questions it on Meta then it's too bad.
In case it's unclear, Xander's post only concerns delete-votes that had no effect at all, rather than self-retracted delete-votes.
in CDStatus Script, Nov 5 at 17:59, by user21820
This script requires GreaseMonkey (for Firefox derivatives) or TamperMonkey (for Chrome). After installing GM/TM, save the script in a file with extension ".user.js" (e.g. "cdstatus.user.js") and open it in the browser (or drag it in).
1:25 PM
@XanderHenderson One way to stop almost all vote-wars is to simply accumulate all the votes and change the state of the post whenever the votes are biased to the other side by at least 2·sqrt(n) where n is the current total number of votes. By CLT, a war can only carry on if the whole lot of people who come across the question are perfectly evenly divided, and even then it will not oscillate very fast since a random walk will not stray from the middle band of size 4·sqrt(n) very often.
The constant 2 is of course a tunable parameter.
1:49 PM
@user21820 To stop such "wars" , it would make more sense to limit the number of revivals of a deleted question. Since justified undeletions are exceptional anyway , two revivals should be a reasonable limit. Additionally, undeletions are currently too easy. They should require 5 instead of 3 votes. This would make this "rule" obsolete.
@Peter Well yes, I agree that most deletions as of today are justified, and you could say that exceptional cases could always be flagged for moderator attention. The idea behind accumulating votes was simply that nobody can then complain that their vote was discarded, or that there is any unfair bias.
3:01 PM
Q: Number Theory Conjecture:

George HumbyI have a conjecture I have not yet been able to prove, I am looking for some of your ideas: Let n/m denote c Let a and b be natural numbers If (a)(b)/c=x And (a^2)(b^2)/x=y Then also abc=y Example: Let n/m=3/4 Since 3/4=.75, let c=.75 Let a=4 and b=6 Therefore; (4)(6)/.75=32 (4^2)(6^2)/32=18 (4)...

3:51 PM
I've confronted the same post in the reopen queue for times today, in the last hour: math.stackexchange.com/posts/4178092/timeline, and not of the edits are substantive improvements.
^^^^ Just reviewed for the fifth time.
Open for, and very much in need of deletion. User keeps making frivolous edits to reopen the post from June.
4:22 PM
Thanks @Peter, @JoséCarlosSantos, for assisting in my last delete request.
@rschwieb You may already know. It was closed, then the asker deleted the post.
5 hours later…
2 hours later…
10:51 PM
Too broad? I feel like this isn't a good fit... Proofs of the Cayley-Hamilton Theorem‭ - Aitor Iribar Lopez‭ 2021-12-08 21:23:04Z
@XanderHenderson Indeed. I'm the second downvote: using "needs more focus" (which replaced the "too broad" close reason.)
Thanks, that gives me a good gut check.
I'll wait for another vote to close before finishing it off.
Surprised they didn't use "Big List tag" which really needs to be retired.
@amWhy There are only five tag slots.
And all of them were used.
@XanderHenderson Understandable. It reads like a "Big List" question, in that it seeks to "collect" proofs/answers; no info about what makes an answer better than another. Anyway. Bottomline, like you said, it isn't a good fit.
11:02 PM
Indeed. I left a comment.

« first day (3618 days earlier)      last day (42 days later) »