« first day (3386 days earlier)      last day (65 days later) » 

 
3 hours later…
3:37 AM
@ParamanandSingh Ready to delete
 
 
3 hours later…
6:20 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted website in answer, potentially bad ns for domain in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer (95): The locus of the intersection point of two perpendicular tangents to a given ellipse by Preeti on math.SE
 
6:41 AM
@SmokeDetector Second time this author has posted nonsense.
 
 
4 hours later…
@rschwieb Closed, but will need six downvotes to get to immediate deletion. Somebody can leave a context comment there, combined with some mathematics. Since I don't know an approach to the question, I am refraining from doing this.
 
11:39 AM
@TeresaLisbon not really clear it required immediate deletion. It isn’t a bad question, it’s just a poorly presented one. I just want this to serve as a reminder to others who come to read here that closure isn’t to be viewed merely as a way station for deletion... It would have to spend some time abandoned before it made sense to delete it.
 
@rschwieb Good point to add separately. I recognize this, hence the additional comments, but I can understand that my first sentence could have been suggestive of immediate closure, so thanks once again for pointing it out.
Side note : user's other questions are fine and the first one was soft but well written. This user could be responsive.
 
I don't think that it should be closed
Nothing too wrong with it
 
@Euler2 "Problem" "I wasn't able to do it" "the end". I am perfectly appreciative of the fact that these questions can require tricks, which means that an attempt may not be possible, but the source of the question, the level of the author (do they know relative definitions), have they attempted similar questions (e.g. with idempotents) can all be included. A question being closed is not the mistake of the author, we are not blaming the author for getting things wrong.
@Euler2 BUT : A more complete question is the requirement for the site standards, and we don't want the question to be answered if it is not following the site standards. Ideally a question that comes to CURED and is like that cannot be left to the mercy of PSQ answerers. A question isn't closed to tell the author what they've done wrong, but pretty much to prevent the PSQ brigade from diving in nowadays.
With that in mind, I am sure this author is a responsive one, and am hoping for improvement, and the reopening will happen hopefully.
 
I don't like this system
 
@Euler2 Do you not like the MSE rules? The rules which state that questions require context?
Or the fact that we shouldn't be deciding what questions to close? What part of the system is the primary source of irritation?
 
11:56 AM
The rules are fine
But i don't like where the systen is going
 
@Euler2 Do you feel the system is creating a divide? It is creating a disharmony among users, because it grasps at a fundamental discrepancy in the way that people think about helping others?
 
Toxicity, rudeness
 
@Euler2 The difference of opinion is a very fundamental one, you see. The reason for rudeness and occasional toxicity (and what is rude and toxic too, I can see people disagreeing on as well, although I would not) is that each side of the argument begins with the head and moves down to the heart, where the site resides. When it starts hurting emotionally, then we see these elements start to play themselves out.
 
There were a lot less psqs back in 2013
But there was also a lot less rudeness in 2013
Dont ping me too much just write euler
 
Euler, There were fewer users back in 2013! There was a tighter-knit community, dedicated to one goal at least, whether approached from different directions or not. As of today, there are so many users, so many users, and each one can't be tracked, their visions could differ widely from the site depending upon who informed them about it.
Then there's social media. You certainly read about trolling and rudeness on social media, right?
 
12:05 PM
Yeah
 
Think of MSE as becoming very much in one with social media occasionally. See some of the questions and conversations, and you will think that they are straight out of a thread in social media.
 
It is a lot more than here
(Many) new users post bad questions and (many) high rep users are very rude
 
True, right? The users and role models of MSE deserve credit in that they ask for people to speak correct and coherent English, and communicate clearly their desires and doubts. That much keeps it away from resembling social media.
 
We try to improve new users but we should also try to improve high rep users
 
About the bad questions and the behaviour of high-rep users, that's kind of bound to happen. We encourage diversity, and with diversity comes issues such as a lack of uniform goal and direction for the site, more abuse, more rudeness and lastly a drop in quality. As for high-rep users, you see, high-rep is also associable with a higher ego, after all they feel they've done something right to get that level of reputation.
 
12:09 PM
I am sure some people will hate my opinions :)
But my opinions will not change so, uh, i don't care
 
We may disagree somewhere, but I always ala Voltaire tell people that I will defend to death their right to disagree with me.
And your opinions don't differ from mine very much anyway. All we need is a mutual acceptance of opinions. Something that has been missing with the high-rep users, who certainly don't understand what answering of low-quality questions does for the site.
 
I don't want the site to turn into a "noobophobic" cult of high rep users
 
No it won't. We are here, you are here. We need a fresh generation of good answerers to come through, that ensure that the high rep users don't have everything their way.
On an average, six to seven high rep users answer close to 40-45 questions a day in total, on average for the last seven days (I say this from some personal tracking). If each such answer had the desired quality, I wouldn't be complaining , but I'm sorry they don't.
 
I am here, we are here. But there will be a time when I won't be here, we won't be here, and probably most of the good users won't be here
Many websites which were very good have became awful today
 
That's transition, isn't it? Everybody has to go someday. But while we are here, let's make a difference. That's what I would say. Manny websites have become awful due to flooding. The only ways to work would be either to accept the lack of quality and move, or to maintain strict standards and be watchful. We are simply a group of people doing the latter.
And while we do that, we encounter strict opposition from people who would accept the compromise if it meant that they could answer questions and "help" (subjectively) users more, even if those questions were bad.
That's what leads to a lot of toxicity and rudeness as well, in some sense.
The fact that people differ on the fate of the site, and what interests they have at heart (or if they have any interest at all).
 
12:43 PM
yes we should be strict
but one of the reason of rudeness is, indeed, being strict. many users thought that strictness is equivalent to rudeness
 
1:01 PM
That last sentence is extremely powerful, and comes down to how one reacts to being told that something they are doing is to be reflected upon. Ideally the expectation is that users can be acceptive of each other's viewpoints, but then again, diversity, and this is not always the case.
 
@TeresaLisbon Yes, I figured you already understood this already. I try to drop billboards now and then to help stave off misunderstandings by outsiders. Some characters latch onto comments like those as evidence for their "deletion mill" portrayal of our work.
Such is the habit of so many in our present day policy struggles :(
 
what is the meaning of rschwieb
 
What, like the meaning as a word?
 
@rschwieb You will be pleased to know that there was a response to the question you sent which got closed. You can take a look here and reply if you wish.
 
My feeling is that Q1 and Q2 are virtually the same, and that one should be closed as a duplicate of the other. Indeed, my feeling is that the answer to Q1 pretty much answers Q2, as well. Am I reading the mathematics correctly (this is very much not my field)?
 
1:12 PM
@Euler2 Forgot to relate my comment to your post. Am I understanding right?
 
This was flag as (essentially) "not an answer". I am not sure that I understand why this doesn't address the question. Am I missing something?
 
@XanderHenderson Not missing much, but I'm sure the flagger is the commenter there, who thinks that a more refined answer than just code was being asked for. I'm not sure this is the case, and I side with the answerer here.
 
1:33 PM
PSQ to close.
 
2:08 PM
Please track this question for improvement, and when you see it reopen.
 
 
3 hours later…
RRL
4:46 PM
@TeresaLisbon: DA,DB, DD-DF, DI-DK each need an additional vote (in case you have not already considered these). I believe Paramanand has. Thanks
 
5:09 PM
@RRL Thanks, they are all gone now!
 
5:20 PM
this question made it into the -10 or worse club but even this does not stop some users to give an answer (a partial answer, but this is bad enough).
The answer was given almost immediately after the post
 
5:37 PM
@TeresaLisbon That PSQ is up for deletion.
@Peter Gone.
 
@user21820 Thanks
 
6:06 PM
"-1/12" closed. But I expect a soon reopening
 
6:29 PM
@Peter I don't think that the close reason given is appropriate. That question is not the usual $\sum 1/n = -1/12$ nonsense. Rather, they are asking about the uniqueness of analytic continuations of functions defined by sums.
I actually think that it is a reasonably good question, modulo the fact that it is a duplicate.
 
@XanderHenderson A bit relieved, though to see that it was closed, given that the answer wasn't right for the question asked. More answers like that could have come and spoilt the issue. Daniel's answer was correct.
@XanderHenderson In terms of reopening, I've got a feather in the cap here! Really like the answer as well. Very very happy we closed this and made OP improve it.
 
6:53 PM
@TeresaLisbon I've made some further quality-of-life improvements.
 
@XanderHenderson Thanks! And speaking of the answer that was flagged as "not an answer" earlier, I took a look at it and I agree with you, I'm not sure how that's not an answer, it's a piece of code that when executed provides the answer, and the context did not include whether or not code can be used, although sentiments against it may have come from the fact that the OP's attempts were on paper.
I have provided some comments there, and I hope that the parties are in agreement. The answer still has two down votes and a delete vote, but I'd rather that it not go, honestly.
 
7:17 PM
@TeresaLisbon
@IgorRivin Correct, for all we know a closed form may exist. — Teresa Lisbon 55 mins ago
"may" or "may not"? :P
 
@XanderHenderson "may". Who knows, there could be some nice formula, at least Igor was hinting in that direction.
He was saying that there could be one, but we've got too little ability to find it. I agreed with that.
Oh, I see it was meant as a joke, following the emoji. Oh dear, I must get my humour in order, @XanderHenderson.
Dull as dishwater, efficient as the Carnot engine is Teresa then.
 
@TeresaLisbon Grrr... that is not an emoji.
Emojis are silly UTF things used by millennials.
That, my friend, is a venerable emoticon.
From the dark ages of digital communication! >:(
 
@XanderHenderson I see. Thank god I'm not a millenial then. Having said that , when it comes to technology I'd imagine I should have been born in the 70s. Even my music taste seems to hint at this.
 
Me, too.
We're talking about the 1870s, right?
 
@XanderHenderson Good one! Were I born in 1870 I'd imagine I wouldn't be on MSE. I'd have been a temple priestess, if I went according to my family heritage. I am a preistess, but of something else now!
 
7:24 PM
Though, to be honest, 1870 is about 15-20 years too early. Men's fashion, in my opinion, reached its height during the Edwardian era. :D
 
@XanderHenderson Well, anyway, I've got to open the PSQ dam now, the PSQs are going to be flowing in!
 
Yar... I have another class in 30 minutes.
I wonder what I am supposed to be teaching today?
Oh! Cavelieri's principle. Fun!
 
@XanderHenderson That's gorgeous! Are you heading towards integral geometry?
You should try an "intuitive" explanation of Crofton's formula as well.
 
Introductory calculus. We are into the last chapter of the semester, which is rather misleadingly called "Applications of Definite Integrals".
It is a weird hodge-podge of topics, many of which are (in my opinion) kind of a waste of time. :\
Like, I don't really care about volumes or surfaces of revolution.
In particular, we don't know what a logarithm or exponential is yet, to the paradox of Gabriel's horn is out of reach.
 
@XanderHenderson Ooh, that's interesting? Applications of definite integrals sounds to me like a mix-n-match of analysis topics. I too recall learning these, and to be fair I didn't care either. You add that logs and exponentials are not known yet : I'm quite surprised then. Who designs the syllabus?
 
7:30 PM
On the other hand, arc length is important (though I probably would prefer to defer the discussion until we can talk about parameterized curves, but... meh).
Oh, I think that this is the right approach: the logarithm is, by definition, the integral of $1/x$.
 
@XanderHenderson It is what I would call the right approach.
 
We could have introduced the exponential as the unique measurable (or, really, differentiable) function which satisfies $f(x+y) = f(x) f(y)$, but it is just as well to define it to be the inverse of the logarithm, and then show that it has this property.
 
@XanderHenderson Same here. Why isn't this done? I do recall, however, that my professor at college taught the exponential series in a different way and had a brain fade.Needless to say he had a fit and had to repeat his lecture again with a different approach.
 
Personally, if I had my druthers, I would probably introduce the exponential function at around the same time that continuity is introduced: $a^x$ is intuitive for natural numbers and (maybe) integers, not too hard to extend to the rationals, and then goes to the reals by continuity and the property that it is a homomorphism from the additive group of real numbers to the multiplicative group of positive reals.
On the other hand, we could define $\exp(x)$ to be the unique solution to the IVP $u' = u$ with appropriate initial condition.
I guess.
In any case, I really need to go prepare.
Later.
 
@XanderHenderson Good luck! Enjoy the class. If you ever need second opinions you are welcome here!
 
@vitamind It's not wrong, but it's too long and involved for sure. Do you think we should delete? I see there's a downvote and a vote to delete now, though.
Adam has asked "why the downvote", I think someone should tell him
 
@TeresaLisbon I did not downvote. Also I cannot vote to delete questions yet.
 
@vitamind I see! Then someone else has done it! Anyway, I'll set up a response then/
Response set up. Let's see.
 
@TeresaLisbon Thanks for your comment. Not only is this method a lot harder, in my opininion the content of the post does not provide enough information to be an answer. One can easily give the idea $z=x+iy$ as a comment.
 
@vitamind Exactly. That's why I've provided incentive in a further comment to ask for an expansion of the answer. It's beautiful, on the one hand you'll have the traditional x+iy approach and then the polar approach. It'll be nice to contrast them, see what each brings to the table in this problem, that's what I would look forward to if the answer was completed.
The incentive is lost : the other answer has been accepted, OP has perhaps upvoted the x+iy answer as well. No point. Unexplained up votes rubbing it in again!
 
8:43 PM
Update: The answerer edited the post, my request is to be withdrawn :).
 
8:59 PM
@vitamind Done, and up voted as well!
 

« first day (3386 days earlier)      last day (65 days later) »