@BillDubuque I told you exactly what happened. I would be happy to provide clarification, but not when the a priori assumption is that I am lying---the imperative "...tell us what really happened" is rude, and presumes that I have not already done so.
@BillDubuque Then don't put comments which you feel are important in the comment boxes. Comments are meant to give suggestions which can be used to clarify a question or answer. Comments are ephemeral. If you are worried about comments being deleted, use chat.
From my perspective, there was a long back-and-forth comment thread in which neither user was attempting to actually clarify the question. In fact, both users seemed to be debating the merits of a deleted answer. This is not an appropriate use of comments.
In any event, I am teaching a full load right now, my daughter is in town and I would like to spend time with her, and my limited involvement in CURED while balancing real world affairs is obviously causing more offense than help. I will refrain from commenting here until the real world settles down a bit.
@XanderHenderson I see no definitive reason given above for the deletion - only some guesses. That I'd like to know what "really happened" means I'd like to know the "real" reason instead of the above guesses. It was not meant to imply anyone was "lying" about it. I'm surprised you could seriously read it that way. Again, could you please supply the text of the deleted comment so I can use it in posting a bug report if need be.
@XanderHenderson fyi: This site has a long history of keeping on-topic math comments. This is esp. important for (meta)math comments like those in that thread, which attempt to explain pertinent issues not clear to beginners - issues which can't be posted as answers but are key to evaluation of answers. If the current mod team has made a decision to change that policy then there should be meta discussion, since I highly doubt the community will agree.
In particular, the fact that that "magic" answer got 12 upvotes shows clearly that we still have much work to do in teaching some students what is valid math and what is not. Deleting meta-mathematical comments that address such matters greatly exacerbates the problem.
@MartinR Their posts were weird enough that I looked at their other posts. I really don't know what to make of them - they too seem like nonsense, but also possibly plausible and I just don't understand them. They used the phrase "junctional derivative", and after a decent search this seems properly niche.
@Peter I ,actually , somebody is actually taking time out in their day to input that into some software! Wow. Just that. It's embarrassing when we say : "provide motivation" and then you have things like this happening. It just proves that sometimes you can throw a terrible question to an audience of 10000 and one of them will be bored enough to actually solve it for you.
That question is now up for deletion : I would have said it's too little time, but frankly I see the rep of the OP ,and they HAVE to be doing better than that.
@Saad The post Nr. 2 is morever brand-new. Sad, that we canniot do anything because of those ridicoulous bounties and the even more ridicoulous rule that they shield posts from beging closed.
@Peter @Saad @TeresaLisbon and others math.stackexchange.com/q/4180114/876009 Here I told most of the answerers to not answer such question in future because these question lack context. However one of the last answerer seem to claim that this question has context in form of "In the first brackets we maybe have an AP?". So is this so called context enough to be called context? Also please close this question as I most probably see lack of context
@Peter I'm sorry; I meant it needed one more close vote, at which point it will be open for deletion, provided the vote count doesn't change. Sorry for the confusion.
I came across this bounty PSQ. Since it is an older question (posted 4 years ago) it might be okay to not close-vote it. But is it okay to provide an answer after the EQSs? Should we flag the answers, which have been posted a few hours ago?
@JitendraSingh Two of us at least flagged the comment from the answerer, and it's gone. Also, the answer is at -2, with a delete vote. The question has one delete vote. Both the answer by the rude user, and the question itself are open for deletion.
@amWhy thank-you for the invitation, but I'm actually about to make bruschetta for tea and I'm getting pinged from all directions by people (not on this site, which makes it harder to ignore them) but maybe when I've eaten!
I cannot recognize how this answer answers the question, which specifically asks why the triangle inequality does not lead to the correct maximum of some complex functions.
@jasmine FYI: the format to use for leaving a link is [description of what is being linked](URL), where URL is the hyperlink. But we still got your link, thanks!
