12:02 AM
I understand, @Xander. But it's hard for "inside workers" to know the site, without engaging in it. I spent two months on this site lurking, editing, trying to gauge the culture, but that only takes one so far.

2 hours later…
1:39 AM
Delete (Need information on whether answerer has been EoQSed or not : if you have EoQSed the author then kindly mention it please, thank you).

3 hours later…
4:26 AM

4:39 AM
Good morning everybody. @XanderHenderson are you here? I have a question.

@lonestudent You can ask it, I think Xander will get back, hopefully.
@MartinSleziak It is. There's nothing to distinguish the questions.
(In fact, the duplicate dialog box throws this up as the first suggestion, so surely it's got it right.)

5:03 AM
There is a situation, it needs to be fixed. People can get it wrong. I need to know the right thing. For a short discussion, see: Do I need to delete my question?

D1, D2, D3, D4
D5, D6, D7, D8

5:40 AM

6:24 AM

6:54 AM

@ParclyTaxel Ready to delete (not sure how to rescue the question).
@user21820 I think "I am not to approach this question" came out very interestingly! Well, I made worse mistakes even a few years ago!
Heavily upvoted question with obvious counterexample read the "how to get up votes" manual from OP.

7:52 AM
@TeresaLisbon As I assumed, the problem was stated incorrectly. That has been fixed now, but I have asked for more context.

8:09 AM
@MartinR Thanks for that. I would have liked to assume that $h^2$ was $h^3$, when I saw the counterexample, but I couldn't intuit it.
Ah well, more context regarding the question is required. I wish I could add a proof I'm thinking of, but no it is!

8:47 AM
this is just a PSQ. The preamble is just the definition.

1 hour later…
9:55 AM
@lonestudent: I checked your response on that thread. Currently you have your approach in two places (answer to an old question and as a separate question). To remove redundancy it is best to delete your question.

Can I ask if this question is on the radar right now?

10:11 AM

I mean, if it is on the Review Queues, specifically on the VLQ/C/D.

put a dupe up

@soupless I don't know if it is possible to find this out. It has no close votes though, so unlikely to be in the "close votes" queue (questions are put there via a close vote, I believe).

Now the last linked question has a close vote - dupe vote!

1 hour later…
11:21 AM
A duplicate: math.stackexchange.com/q/4142917/42969 (after a very simple rearrangement of the inequality).

12:00 PM
@MartinR: needs one more vote to close as dupe.

Need two more duplicate votes or it won't be closed as a duplicate

12:12 PM
Why was this question closed? It is pretty much a year old and much better than many questions on this site. Moreover, I think questions of the form "here is something I read in a book and I want to understand it a bit more" are fundamentally good questions, especially when they give a precise reference to the book.

12:27 PM
@user1729 Concerning the question, I am not sure whether it should have been closed. But concerning the argument with the reference to a book, only a few (if any) users will have the book, so such a reference is not really useful. A Wikipdeia link or a link to a pdf is what users need. If the author works out the question however, it is OK. But the question must be understandable without having the book.

12:37 PM
math.stackexchange.com/questions/4143072/… So finally the real identity of the user who was pestering me some days ago has been found
Can we deal with this somehow?

1:07 PM
@ParclyTaxel Raise a custom flag if you suspect violation of rules, and let the moderators handle it.

Delete if necessary is 7 hours enough to check for a user response?
Obvious duplicate (Placed if someone wants to flag for duplication of answer : not sure if I want to delete the question).

1:31 PM

1:51 PM
(Wait : the answerer above is not suspended, so why does their reputation show 1?)

@TeresaLisbon The question is not trivial. Two deleted answers claimed a proof, but the counterexample seems to be correct. Still a PSQ in my opinion.

@lonestudent I answered your inquiry on the thread itself, but someone flagged my comment (probably out of spite), so here is my answer:
> Since you ask, I'll give you my frank opinion here. Your 'alternative' method here is pointless. It ultimately relies on the irrationality of sqrt(13), and involves the same squaring step as in the simple clean solution. There is nothing new in your method, and it instead obscures the core of the problem.
> Based on that, I think you should delete this post. However, it is fine to leave your answer at the other thread if you like it, since it is up to other people to figure out whether or not it is useful. But it is simply of no use to highlight it here in a thread of its own. Makes sense?

@supinf That's a good point : a difficult question and a nice, tricky answer. Still got to close, but we can think of keeping it reopened. I still think it is a user who has answered a PSQ : Note that the OP has not yet interacted on the post.
Also wondering about the rep of the answerer : why does it show 1?

@lonestudent I can't make that decision for you.
Personally, it looks to me like you are asking folk to peer-review something which you claim is novel. In general, such questions are not a good fit for Math SE.

@TeresaLisbon Maybe the user posted their counterexample as an answer because they were bothered by the false proofs? That would be understandable in my opinion

2:07 PM
@ParclyTaxel It appears that this was taken care of yesterday. The user has been suspended.

2:33 PM
@supinf It is a psq, and should be closed until improved.

@supinf The Collatz conjecture is a nontrivial problem which could, nevertheless, be presented as a problem statement. The difficulty or triviality of a problem is completely orthogonal to the question of whether or not the question provides enough context to merit inclusion on Math SE.
(and now I think that I am caught up with the discussion here, maybe).
And now I am off to my office (I am going to my office on the campus in Snowflake today for the second time ever!).

3:10 PM

3:22 PM
@user1729: I don't have any idea about the topic of that question (tensors and related stuff). However I think the book must have defined the things in RHS before introducing the definition in question so if some more details like the relevant passage from the book might have helped.

3:50 PM
FYI. Our friend Jorge, who became "Here to relax", has yet again changed his name. this time to @Onir.

But that was old news, I even put my homepage on my profile since you said I was flying under the radar

@supinf In my opinion the question lacks context : so a counterexample like that would have been nice to see after question had improved. Also, there's no mention of how the counterexample was constructed and why the proposition was thought to be false, from the answerer. At least a guess of "I think this is true/false" should have been there from OP with/without reason (the former preferable).
@amWhy Thanks for the update.

lol ok
It's been a pleasure talking to you.

@TeresaLisbon Yikes, needs one more delete vote!

@amWhy and others: agreed, and I voted to close

4:00 PM
3 messages moved to ­Trash

@supinf Nice to know, thanks.
@amWhy Thanks, and yes it is surprising.
That such a high rep user would pull off such a question.

@TeresaLisbon It's amazing to me how so many people support rules, but consider themselves to be exempt from them.

@TeresaLisbon Challenge : Is $$2^{n-1}\equiv 5\mod n$$ for some integer $n>1$ ?

@Peter You have my number! I'll come to the Hopf chatroom for this one!

4:17 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body (95): .................................... ✏️ by Jack on math.SE

5:05 PM
@ParamanandSingh I am less sceptical as to their being information missing - noone commented to say this, and the answer makes no reference to the book. Moreover, I think that people saying "this is on page X of book Y" is good context. Just because everyone does not own the book does not make the question invalid or bad.

@user1729 Please use the "reply to" feature when replying to posts further up in the transcript, so it can be understood in context.
See how I "replied to" your previous comment, to make clear to whom and what I am responding?

@user1729 I think we should not discuss the given answer. Question has to be judged on its own merit.

@user1729 If you don't know how to use that feature, which provides a ninety degree shadow of an arrow, which when clicked, highlights the post to which you are responding, I'll be happy to run through the process with you.

@user1729: to me it looks like "please elaborate some definition x from book y" . There should be some more details. Don't you think so?

2 hours later…
6:47 PM

7:16 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body, potentially bad keyword in body (42): solve the differential equations by ENGINEER MEDIA on math.SE

7:30 PM
@JoséCarlosSantos And a duplicate, of course.

7:49 PM
@JoséCarlosSantos Up for deletion now.
Delete: Plain PSQ thread with familiar user names...

8:06 PM
Close duplicate

Here ia a dupe It has one vote and one answer already. The answerer has a knack for answering dupes and gets really upset when called out.

@OliverDiaz In my opinion, bad questions should be closed as lacking context rather than duplicates, because "duplicate closure" should be reserved for good questions that are duplicates.

@user21820: It is closed now. I forgot I had the dupe hammer on this tag. Do you want to reopen it?

@RRL No of course not. Since it's closed this way, that's fine.
After all, if a question is reopened it is harder for the original close-voters to close it again.

Of course. I could unilaterally reopen it and then others could vote to close for lack of context etc. but that would be a waste of time. I'll be more attentive next time.

8:17 PM
@RRL It's only a marginal difference, don't worry about it!

I will defend against downvote/close attacks.

9:15 PM

9:25 PM
@lonestudent I can understand the downvotes. Your "question" is not suited for math.se. In future you should take a screenshot of your (not too big) proof and then post it in the math chatroom. People there will help.

@lonestudent At first, you asked whether you should delete your question. But now you are suggesting that people are attacking you. This makes no sense. Was your original inquiry sincere or not?

10:05 PM
Wrong answer needs more downvotes. It shows A⇒B, but the question requires B⇒A.

10:31 PM
@user21820 This is my opinion, as well. The flow chart should go "Is this a good question?"
If "No", vote to close. If "Yes", then ask
"Is this question a duplicate?"
If "Yes", vote to close as a duplicate. If "No", great!
@lonestudent No one is attacking you. At worst, they are attacking your argument. However, that is how real intellectual inquiry goes: we attack each other's ideas in order to get at the "truth".
I mean, to get a PhD, you have to defend a thesis. In this defense, you walk into a room with your committee, and (in principle) they do everything they can to tear your thesis apart.
Moreover, it is my recollection that you came into this room and asked if you should delete the question, and seemed to be asking for advice regarding how to approach the question. You asked for input from others. It seems disingenuous to ask for such advice and then get upset when advice is offered.