« first day (3537 days earlier)      last day (33 days later) » 

12:09 AM
@user21820 it seems to be deleted now, but thanks for mentioning it. My impression after quick glance at the question was that someone was aiming a bit above their level.
 
 
3 hours later…
3:05 AM
@supinf That (deletion of comment) is precisely why I quoted it here as a public record, since it is clear to me that the asker is abusing the site.
@XanderHenderson: I don't know why my flag on that was declined (maybe not by you). It would have been far better to remark saying "no evidence found" if that really was the case. Merely declining gives me no confidence that moderators have investigated.
 
 
4 hours later…
7:13 AM
D - also note the comment "why is this downvoted?"
 
 
2 hours later…
9:02 AM
This question of mine math.stackexchange.com/questions/4245744/… first closed due to being duplicate ( which it was not ) , then opened and then again closed due to it being a low quality. I have edited it so it is on par with the site and used the approaches given in the comments but was unable to fully solve it. So, I think it needs to be re opened.
 
C/D - also note the demand (!) to answer this question. The only "context" is the mentioning of a numberphile-video.
 
9:57 AM
@James Now reopened by Peter and 4 others
@JoséCarlosSantos I didn't understand why you first voted to reopen this question and then when it was in close queue again voted to close it? Why so?
 
10:21 AM
 
How could this get 3 reopen-votes ?
 
@MathStackExchange That PSQ is up for deletion.
@Peter One more delete-vote needed. I don't mind sincere questions but this one doesn't sound like it. Calling a basic real analysis fact absurd instead of questioning why he/she "am totally [sic] disagree" with it.
@James Thank you for following guidelines and improving your question! =)
 
10:47 AM
@user21820 One delete-bote needed. What is the "smallest equivalence relation" ?
 
11:19 AM
@JitendraSingh My closing vote was a mistake. It should have stayed open.
 
12:18 PM
@JitendraSingh Another download to the answer there and the post would be auto-deleted.
 
@user21820 It was a misclick on my part.
 
1:10 PM
 
This has been (re)undeleted thoughts? In my opinion it at least should not reopen, but I'm asking about deletion.
 
@TeresaLisbon This "revival" of an utterly off-topic question is annoying , to say the least.
 
@Peter Yes, to me it looks off-topic anyway. From the undeleters point of view, I'm thinking the question is exceptional and deserves a pass, even if it could be off-topic for peer-review of that paper. The amount of research done behind the question, and the answer, is to be honest quite exceptional. Of course we could say "stick to the rules, off topic is off topic" but I am actually on side of "closed, but undeleted".
And I don't think the question is "missing context" , it's "inherently" off-topic, so it should be closed for that reason, if not for others. Closure is not up for debate as far as I'm concerned.
@ArcticChar All Ds from 10 to 12 are gone. Most of the other Ds are open and have one delete vote, so you will need to more people to go through your avalanche to delete all of them.
 
1:37 PM
@TeresaLisbon I see no argument to keep debates about a dubious paper on this site. That such papers are published at all before being carefully checked is annoying enough. In particular in the case of a problem which has a high probability to be completely out of reach.
 
1:49 PM
I am inclined to agree with Peter. By analogy, let's say that someone builds a beautiful sculpture. They put in a lot of effort and spend time crafting something amazing. They put wheels on it so that it is technically a vehicle, then park is in the parking lot of the local grocery store and leave it there.
Should the owners of the store have it removed?
I mean, it is a vehicle, and parking lots are for parking...
But it really doesn't belong there.
 
@XanderHenderson Impressing analogy !
 
 
1 hour later…
2:59 PM
@Peter I second that, @Xander.
With respect to the question of concern, we need one more delete vote.
 
3:17 PM
@amWhy Look like we need 5 total delete votes on that question, so 3 more to go.
 
@ArcticChar Darn, you're right. Sorry for the premature claim. :(
 
4:17 PM
@amWhy We should have enough users here to delete it, but some seem to hesitate.
I guess it is undeleted again anyway , even a moderator cannot prevent this , correct me, if I am wrong.
Why do questions , being answered by single comment, receive multiple answers and why are those also being upvoted , although they add virtually nothing to the comment ? Here is an example
And this is more extreme.
 
5:06 PM
@Peter I have voted to delete but need a few more votes before it gets deleted.
 
5:40 PM
@ParamanandSingh One is currently needed.
 
 
2 hours later…
7:25 PM
@TeresaLisbon You expressed my view on why I've voted to undelete that question, as well as close it when it was reopened, quite well. In addition to what you wrote, I believe it should remain due to the exceptional circumstances of the underlying situation. In most cases, such papers are supported by just the person themselves, or perhaps one or two others to some degree. ...
(cont.) I don't know of any other case where a committee from a higher level institution went to so much time & trouble to "investigate" a paper. Also, at least 4 or 5 newspapers in India have reported on this. I believe Kumar doesn't take no well, and will not give up, so will try again sometime later. I'd like to leave this post for such future references. ...
(cont.) Nonetheless, it seems I am in the minority among this group, and I'm not interested in getting involved in a delete/undelete "war". Also, since a moderator, i.e., @XanderHenderson, believes it should be deleted, I don't believe this post will remain undeleted for long. For what it's worth, though, I just wanted to express my opinion.
 
@JohnOmielan What you write here is all the more reason it should go. You and I and many others, including mods, can act to preserve access to the post.
3 mins ago, by John Omielan
(cont.) I don't know of any other case where a committee from a higher level institution went to so much time & trouble to "investigate" a paper. Also, at least 4 or 5 newspapers in India have reported on this. I believe Kumar doesn't take no well, and will not give up, so will try again sometime later. I'd like to leave this post for such future references. ...
 
@JohnOmielan I don't see how the last sentence of the passage I quoted follows.
 
@amWhy What I meant with what I wrote there is that if Kumar tries again later, as I believe he will, possibly after making some changes to his paper which might help make it a bit better, but still very unlikely to be rigorous, I believe it will be useful to refer any later posts addressing this back to this earlier one.
I'm not interested in debating this too much but, instead, just wanted to express my opinion about it. Also, note that many other similar type posts, i.e., various "cranks" who claim to have solved some well-known unsolved math problem, I've not only voted to close, but also to delete. It's just this very unusual one I think we should make an exception for.
@amWhy I just realized my earlier reply doesn't make a lot of sense since, of course, we can just undelete the post later. Nonetheless, in the meantime, anybody who comes across Kumar's paper, or the Indian newspapers articles, can find this post to help show that Kumar's claims are not rigorous, and should not be considered valid.
 
7:48 PM
@XanderHenderson I think we differ on the "it doesn't really belong there", and while I of course agree with the non-belongingness in your analogy, IMO this question comes closer to displaying similarity with on-topic questions on MSE, than a sculpture on wheels does to cars in a parking lot. Look, this is just an opinion. If this was a run-of-the-mill question and answer, I would not object to deletion : I would vote to delete, in a heartbeat. But I ... I actually believe that this level of research..
 
@TeresaLisbon But you haven't made a cogent case as for why this case is different, or rather, why it ought not be deleted. The arguments from you and John only seem to nail the fact that it is best to delete. Given upvotes, even if it remains closed, will give others stopping in the impression the question has merit. You've already made your position clear, why repeat it now again?
Any evidence need in the future will be here, deleted or not. I'd sure hate to visit a museum dedicated to Hitler, his words, his family, etc., just to warn people of who he was; it is likely rather to encourage neo-nazi's.
 
@amWhy ... is role-model levels of research.... I give up, yes, I've ran on thin ice for this one. I tried to defend it because I wanted to express that I see some merit in it, but there's no point, off-topic is off-topic.
 
@TeresaLisbon I am not berating you. If that's what you believe needs to be the case, non deletion, okay. I just don't think I've heard any cogent explanation of its merits.
 
@amWhy No, you're right. I mean, I'll come back with a more cogent argument, but off-topic is nailed-on, and the question is not going to change,so the close-reason can't be corrected.
 
@amWhy I haven't, overall, expressed myself very well above. My main point is that, due to the relatively large exposure of Kumar's paper through things like the Indian newspaper articles, I believe it's useful to have a post in a respected site, which I believe this site qualifies as, to dispute the committee's results. I hope that'll help to ensure people don't believe that Kumar actually has a valid solution.
 
8:05 PM
@XanderHenderson Oh okay thanks for clarifying!
 
Ok, this is probably better : this question has merit as a *meticuously-researched*(news reports + other opinions) question that has generated a lot of conversation and been well-received, and could possibly be of referential significance (although the Hitler reference is appropriate) as a cogent presentation of where an extremely popular (at least in India) proof went wrong. Now, the point is : what kind of question remains undeleted but not closed? I personally think that this question...
 
@amWhy Since it doesn't seem that post will remain undeleted for much longer, with most people here having an opposing point of view to mine, I don't think it's worth my time & effort to debate this too much more here. It's likely that we will just need to agree to disagree on this, although from what I've read here, we agree on many other things.
 
... falls in there. I mean, this is exactly the kind of question that we have sought to preserve with locks earlier, right? Of course, one can press the off-topic argument, and IMO it will eventually lead to deletion, I actually don't have a problem.
The reason I don't have a problem is because I've strived not really to see things from my point of view (which is somewhere between everything I wrote and the analogy of the sculpture in the parking lot ref. Xander) but of those who might have voted to reopen.
 
Seriously, both @Teresa, and @John, my biggest concern is that the question gets reopened, so that Kumar himself, or other disciples can post answer further confusing the situation.
 
@amWhy I will not let it open. That, for me , is undebatable.
It is off-topic. We've spoken about that too many times. I believe it has worth preserving as-is, but I wouldn't want to change the assertiveness of the post.
 
8:09 PM
I respect both of your positions, @John, @Teresa, but in all honesty, Math.SE is hardly seen worldwide as an academically credible site.
 
@amWhy For what it's worth, if that post is undeleted and reopened, like @TeresaLisbon, I will also vote to close, if I'm allowed to, i.e., any previous vote has timed out.
 
@JohnOmielan @amWhy Thanks, we do agree on it being off-topic. I'll let the deletion be decided by the others, I think seeing both points of view has reduced me into a neutral in this situation. I will probably wait and watch for reopening votes. But here's a caveat : If I see this reopening, I'm probably going to vote to delete.
If I had to choose between it being open and it not being there, then I know what's preferable for sure.
 
@JohnOmielan Unfortunately you are not allowed to do that. You can only close once.
 
@amWhy I suspect many, if not most, people would consider this site to be more mathematically credible that any Indian newspaper. Regardless, having that additional voice to help dispute the committee's "findings" should help, to whatever extent, to at least get people to not accept what the Indian newspapers wrote without question.
@ArcticChar Actually, I believe you can vote to close more than once, but there's a relatively long time period (I don't recall offhand what it is) before your vote "times" out so you can revote again.
 
@JohnOmielan But your close-vote had already in effect. (The situation you mentioned is that you voted to close, but the post is not closed and eventually your vote is invalidated. Then you can vote again sometime later).
 
8:20 PM
@amWhy If that post is reopened and if "Kumar himself, or other disciples can post answer further confusing the situation", I'll flag to try to get that post either locked or deleted, as it's not worth having it opened in that situation. Also, I'll downvote those answers, and vote to delete them.
To everyone, I've spent more time & effort on this issue than it's worth for me. I have it enlightening to read everybody's viewpoints, and getting feedback on some of mine.
 
This was good to discuss about. There is one delete vote required to delete the question, if anyone's interested.
 
8:37 PM
@XanderHenderson I would just go with a beautiful accidental splotch of paint on an empty canvas, which is then put up as art in an art gallery. It doesn't matter how many million dollars some money-grubber managed to sell it for; its actual zero art value doesn't change. Same here; regardless of how much attention some useless junk gets, riding on the badwagon of open conjecture zealots, its actual zero mathematical value doesn't change.
 
9:13 PM
@Peter One more downvote needed to delete.
 
@user21820 I just went there to cast the "one more delete vote", but there were none. So I voted to delete nonetheless. But now there is only one delete vote there.
@user21820 Oops! I see you meant one more downvote to delete, which it seemed to have gotten, so it is now open for deletion; @Peter too.
 
Thanks!
D1, D2, D3.
D4, D5, D6.
D7, D8, D9.
 
9:45 PM
Is this the right place to talk about one of my own (closed) questions?
 
 
2 hours later…
11:51 PM
1 message moved to ­Trash
 

« first day (3537 days earlier)      last day (33 days later) »