[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body (40): Guassian elimination proof related problem by Abdrlrahman on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body (40): Gaussian elimination proof related problem ✏️ by Abdrlrahman on math.SE

@amWhy One delete vote down

@lonestudent No idea. Someone recently mentioned a (poorly designed) video, not surprisingly as tons of bad videos it was very successful. Thish might be a reason since before this video, the number of posts about Collatz was rather small.

My personal situation : I had my second Corina vaccination , and concerning health, I cannot complain. The financial situation however is dramatically, Corona hit me seriously and in Germany population will soon run out of money anyway, everything is getting more expensive , even broadcasting fees increase.

Somebody please help me delete this nonsense: math.stackexchange.com/questions/4217829/…

@MikeEarnest deleted, but one of the comments is very ugly, should be flagged.

C/D - in particular because of the string theory nonsense.

psq

@Peter Here the situation is more dire. We are burning. Forests are burning. I hope you watched the news. The market where I work also collapsed.

@lonestudent The latest video of the YouTube Channel veritasium is about the collatz conjecture. Presumably this is the reason.

C

@LukasBetz thanks. I didn't know.

This question seems to think we are the mathematical equivalent of an essay-writing service (but with "essay" replaced with "Matlab code").

C/D

@TeresaLisbon Hi, I found some new solutions near $75\cdot 10^9$ , but none in larger regions.

@Peter Oh, that might be the last one! Ok, I told you I will see the paper that says it's o(1) (if more precision is given), and based on that we'll evaluate the result we have.

Let us continue in Martin Hopf's room

I would quite like these two questions to be reopened: Q1 Q2. They are of the same format: "I'm going through the proof of Theorem X in book Y, and there is something I do not get...", and honestly I wish this site had more questions of this format (rather than "here is an exercise my prof. gave me and I tried blah, help me plz").

Mostly, however, I wish voters would comment on questions such as these to say how they could be improved. In particular, these questions tick many of the boxes in the "missing context" close reason ("background and motivation, source"), and so the asker is left to guess at what improvements are expected. Lets communicate more with users to tell them what is expected, rather than leaving them with no clue or expecting someone else to help.

@user1729 This I agree with. On Q2, I'd have probably asked for a statement of theorem 1.4, maybe assumptions that were being made could have been stated up front rather than hidden in the textbook. Having said that, this particular identity is independent of the assumptions, so it wouldn't have mattered, but I wouldn't have been surprised if this is what was asked for as context.

The same applies for Q1 : a full statement of the theorem would definitely do a better job than as it is.

Note : Q1 is here as well.

I've seen another kind of addition which I like as well : people take an image of the proof in the book and highlight the part of the proof that is troublesome. Some people go to lengths to write the proof with MathJax, IMO that should be rewarded. This is borderline, and can be improved by adding those details.

Q1 is reopened, I cast the last vote. Q2 requires another vote.

See also, @Teresa, @user1729, @user21820, @PETER, @all:

@TeresaLisbon The questions can certainly be improved, and I too "wouldn't have been surprised if this is what was asked for as context". However, my original thought was that they should explain why they are stuck. I am frustrated that I have to guess here.

@user1729 Unfortunate, but that's the problem with an attempt. For me, this has reopened because I see the citation is clear, but I'm still wondering if someone can just ask them to put those statements in (or ask for permission to do so). IMO this could be helpful for Q1, if not as much for Q2. The point is similar to what was raised somewhere else : if context is present in a link, then how much of that link must be revealed in the question. In my opinion, a non-zero amount, particularly..

@TeresaLisbon Actually, this is quite subtle. I quite like it when someone posts an image of a proof and says where they are stuck - it reduces the likelihood of transcription errors... (My ideal situation is maybe something like (a) state theorem+proper reference, (b) summarise argument, (c) state issue, and (d) screen shot. Or something.)

... if you are referring to the text that contains the entire context. At least the statement of the theorem should be there.

@user1729 Yes, this makes sense. Anyway, it's good to see there was debate on this!

@amWhy I am just heading offline and unplugging (hopefully) for the weekend, but I think I am missing something. Has SE done something I am not aware of to trigger this?

@user1729 : I linked the math meta chat, where Martin Sleziak posted a link to a Meta.SE post about changes to users profiles.You'll find the link to that post in the "Math Meta Chat". The post from a staffer has received more than 135 downvotes, as it has not been well received. But I applaud you efforts to unplug for the weekend! ;D

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12.

@user21820 Please note your invitation to the Cafe. Also, @Teresa, @TheSimpliFire, @Xander, @postmortes... also anyone interested in LEAVE OUR PROFILES ALONE word search.

@vitamind @user1729 I think I've already invited each of you, too.

Hi @Pedro, come on over to chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/112937/…, (The Cafe and Tavern, for Happy hour and contributing a word to our word search! ;D I've invited two other mods as well. In any case, enjoy the rest of your FRIDAY!!!

PSQ

D1, D2, D3, D4

D5, D6, D7, D8

@TeresaLisbon Sorry I haven't heard from you yet, but when I posted it was rather late in your evening, so I very much understand.

@amWhy Just saw your message (break from sleep), yes I'm not really able to participate in the word searches, and I read the meta chat as well, thanks for linking it. Horrendous proposal, will hopefully drown. Night!

@TeresaLisbon Sleep well!!

PSQ from high rep user

Please consider deleting.

Please consider deleting.

^^^^Not like my last two requests matter, given only posts in a 3 hour framework per day get any attention.