CURED - 2021-07-28

Teresa Lisbon

12:17 AM

Potentially duplicate question

Please close this question

Teresa Lisbon

2:24 AM

Please close this question

Teresa Lisbon

9:15 AM

Please close this duplicate

Teresa Lisbon

9:51 AM

Please close this question

user1729

10:05 AM

PSQ to delete.

Peter

10:18 AM

@JoséCarlosSantos Even answered !

Paramanand Singh

10:41 AM

@user1729 up for deletion.

user1729

@ParamanandSingh Great! Although now the answers have been downvoted it will be roomba'd soon anyway. So no need to waste delete votes if you don't want to :-)

Peter

delete the question

user1729

10:57 AM

@Peter Gone

Saad

One more vote needed: C1, C2, C3

For closure: C4, C5, C6,

C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12, C13

For deletion D1, D2, D3, D4, D5

vitamin d

off topic

Peter

@vitamind One of the most off-topic questions I have seen here.

vitamin d

@Peter Right. I'd expect such a question from a new user.

Peter

@Saad D5 has a 2:2-score between reopen and delete.

user1729

11:08 AM

@Peter Gone now.

Paramanand Singh

@vitamind up for deletion

vitamin d

story time psq

lone student

Dupe

user1729

11:28 AM

@vitamind As Martin R pointed out, the question and solution are copied verbatim from here! So I voted to delete.

vitamin d

@user1729 Everything's fine, they were simply researching how plagiarism works on MSE /S.

Joe

11:47 AM

Please vote to close this question

Saad

12:31 PM

No-clue PSQ

D6

vitamin d

1:07 PM

PSQ

rschwieb

1:43 PM

needs details and improvement: math.stackexchange.com/q/4208866/29335

Peter

one downvote needed for deletion of the question

@Saad "not promotion" , what then ?

And one comment contains a wrong statement, right ?

Peter

3:02 PM

C/D

user1729

@Peter Closed now

Peter

3:17 PM

@user1729 Is the video link in the answer on-topic ? I think no. Apart from that and that the issue with $0^0$ has not been mentioned (but in the comments this has been done) it is not a bad answer since it show the trick how the formula can be easily derived. But I think , the answer should not have be given because of the lack of effort/context , right ?

And moreover, it is a clear duplicate.

vitamin d

Has anyone else noticed that the red dot in the reopen queue does not disappear after voting on every question, which is in there? (every question for me at least means 1)

user1729

@Peter The issue is really the question, not the answer. I think the video there is fine, in the sense that it complements the answer. I often give links to Wikipedia, say, for more details, and linking to a video is similar. (I'm not a fan of videos, but that doesn't mean other people will not find them useful.)

@vitamind Yes. Only in the reopen queue, right?

vitamin d

@user1729 Yes. It's not urgent, but I might write a meta post.

Peter

@vitamind I once experienced that when the queue was already cleared before I entered a vote. How was it in your case ?

@user1729 What is the name of the new convention that poor questions should not be answered ? I think this is it what should be given as reason for the downvote.

Arctic Char

3:33 PM

@vitamind The same for me, encounter the same bug almost everyday.

vitamin d

@Peter Sometimes there appears a red dot next to the "reopen next" button. If I click on it there is only one question in there. There might be more than one but that happens very rarely. After I close the queue the red dot remains.

user1729

@Peter EoQS, or Enforcement of Quality Standards (link here: math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/33508).

Peter

@user1729 That's it. Thank you.

one downvote needed

user1729

3:49 PM

PSQ to close

Xander Henderson

@Peter Just to be clear, it has never been okay to answer low-quality questions. The distinction is that we now have a new procedure for addressing this problem. The focus of the procedure is on the answerers, rather than the askers.

But perhaps I am being pedantic...

user1729

PSQ2 to close.

I would quite like this question to be reopened. It has just failed out of the reopen queue. However, it looks to me like an excellent question - someone is struggling to understand a step in a paper. They link to the paper, and give the relevant definitions. I think this is much better "context" than the usual "attempt"-style context we see.

Peter

@user1729 In the specific case you might be right, but in general I prefer attempts. It is however a close decision and I am not yet sure what to do.

Xander Henderson

@user1729 It is marginal, but I agree that it meets the minimum standard for the site.

@Peter Oddly enough, I hate attempts-as-context, and consider a source plus a small amount of discussion about why we care more useful. :\

cv-pls linear-algebra PSQ? Or do folk consider the link to another question sufficient? Let $A$ be a real matrix, $\det A>0$, is there a real matrix $B$, such that $A=B^2$‭ - xldd‭ 2021-07-28 14:22:18Z

Peter

4:07 PM

@user1729 Reopened (before I decided to reopen it, by the way)

@XanderHenderson I do not consider it enough and voted to close.

user1729

@XanderHenderson Thanks for voting. But...how would you suggest it be improved? Noone commented, and it ticks the "source" and "relevant definitions" boxes of the boilerplate close reason. I wasn't expecting it to be borderline and thought it would be reopened easily via the queue. (I rather dislike the usual homework and textbook questions which are so common here, and so I quite like it when I see questions of this form.)

(I'm just interested in understanding opinions.)

Peter

@user1729 Pointing out specific issues is already a huge step towards a good question. But "I tried hard" is a bit vague. If the author tried something, this should be shown , whether correct or not. This can also help to give an answer (because a wrong trial might still cause someone to have an idea how it can be done correctly although this won't happen often)

Xander Henderson

@user1729 As Peter said, "I tried really hard" doesn't tell us anything at all. The question would be just as good (if not better) without that claim. It would be better to explain what, precisely, the obstruction is.

Peter

@XanderHenderson Exactly ! Without that claim this would be a BETTER post. Nevertheless , I finally agree the reopening.

Arctic Char

@user1729 I guess reviewers could click "leave closed" solely on the ground that it lacks effort. And it has no motivation too: they are defining a new norm r, and all norms are equivalent anyway. Why do they care about that specific constant?

user1729

4:26 PM

@ArcticChar Well, the specifics of the question are tied to the paper - the context is "I was reading a paper which used this norm with these constants...". So they care because the paper cares. Trying to reverse-engineer the precise reason the authors worked everything like they did looks tricky here (in the sense that it is tailored to the setting of a 30-pages paper), and expecting the OP to do this is not really a reasonable ask.

Jitendra Singh

@user1729 But attempt is missing so had I had the close priveldge, I would had vote to close it and I can understand why it came out of reopen queue

Arctic Char

@user1729 In my field, constant does not matter most of the time. And I don't know if that is really unreasonable.... if I encounter an inequality and cannot derive it, the first thing I do is to ask if that inequality is really necessary for the argument.

Peter

Someone else does not understand the video link here in the answer. More serious issues are however not only that the question was poorly presented, but also that everything (apart from the trick to derive the formula) has already been said.

Xander Henderson

@JitendraSingh Again, I wish that we would stop focusing on "an attempt".

The goal is to provide context.

In this case, merely citing the paper gives a lot of context---the question is motivated by the paper, and the existence of the paper implicitly satisfies the condition that someone cares about the problem. I would like to see a little more discussion about what the authors are actually trying to prove here (e.g. if this line shows up in the proof to a theorem, the statement of the theorem might be helpful), but the question seems to meet a minimal standard for context.

It ain't great, but it is better than 90% of what is posted on Math SE.

amWhy

4:44 PM

I disagree that citing a paper, with out quoting or specifying the portion of the paper that concerns the question, is sufficient context: It would need to be a more focused citation.

Xander Henderson

@amWhy I agree that this would be an improvement.

amWhy

In general, I agree that citing sources or motivation goes a long way in terms of context, most of the time. But stating that a problem statement comes from Spivak, Calculus, only, seems a counterexample in terms of sufficient context.

Jitendra Singh

@XanderHenderson But doesn't attempt has a big role while defining context in question. In most cases context can't be completed until it has an attempt

However I do agree context is of good amount just I wish more context is form of attempt could be added to make the question perfect

Xander Henderson

@JitendraSingh An attempt can provide context, but it is not the be-all and end-all of context.

Not every question needs an attempt, and many of the questions in which the author provides an attempt are dis-improved by that attempt.

Again, the point is that you should not focus on whether or not a question has "an attempt", but on whether or not a question provides context.

user1729

5:01 PM

@amWhy I agree that a more focused citation would have helped (and wondered this in my initial comment there).

Xander Henderson

In this particular case, I don't know that an attempt would actually improve the question. As @amWhy suggested, a more complete reference would be an improvement. As I said, fleshing out the context of the problem by restating the relevant theorem would be an improvement.

user1729

Having thought about this for a while now, I have two general comments.
1. It would be nice if, in borderline cases, folk commented to say what they expect. This is particularly useful when the question is closed for lacking context but contains one of: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important (i.e. contains something from the context close reason).
2. We could try and encourage folk to include *more than one of* background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategie…

(I have to go now, but thanks all for engaging :-) )

vitamin d

10:42 PM

one close vote needed

Teresa Lisbon

10:55 PM

@user1729 I look for two, but sometimes I'm fine if one is really good and helpful (usually attempt).

@vitamind Closed!

Transcript for

$Mathematics$ CURED