CURED - 2022-11-29

« first day (3974 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (513 days later) »

Goku

12:46 AM

math.stackexchange.com/q/4587340/1092912 I'm a little unsure about this. Should I flag it?

2 hours later…

Ѕᴀᴀᴅ

2:20 AM

Might-be-related:

Q: Help us identify new roles for community members

TL;DR: The Community Team has been doing discovery work on the possible creation of new community roles across the Stack Exchange network and individual sites. We started by approaching site moderators, and now we want to hear from the broader community about different roles you would like to se...

2 hours later…

Paramanand Singh

4:49 AM

Please close this question as well as this one.

Paramanand Singh

5:18 AM

Please close this no clue question.

Another PSQ worthy of closure

2 hours later…

Peter

7:42 AM

@ParamanandSingh The second one is particular annoying because it was not only answered , there was also a beg of accept included.

Martin R

8:30 AM

A clear duplicate IMO: math.stackexchange.com/q/4587206/42969. In the suggested dup target it is explained why an equation can not be solved by differentiating both sides of the equation. Also one of the answers does not answer the posed question at all.

Peter

8:44 AM

Bill Dubuque

9:22 AM

@amWhy That's a puzzling claim. Surely if someone wanted to avoid having others "weigh in" then they would not post deletion (and closure) requests here. Imo using your GB to reopen a dupe (of a FAQ) in order to prevent deletion (needed only 1 vote) is an abuse of GB power. All the effort involved in organizing that dupe has now been destroyed by a single click (by a user who has no demonstrated expertise in teaching the topic at hand). This is highly disturbing.

Martin R

9:38 AM

@Peter Such comments can be flagged as “no longer needed (outdated, conversational or not relevant to this post).” – Already done here, and quickly handled by a moderator.

If you see a pattern of repeated such comments from the same user then a custom moderator flag might be appropriate.

2 hours later…

Jyrki Lahtonen

11:27 AM

@amWhy Thanks for the background, and the greeting. Personally I'm fine (even though I finally caught COVID), but Europe has certainly changed due to the war. And my savings have taken a bit of punishment. Luckily not too severe - like instead of €100 bottles of single malt I may need to go back to €60 bottles :-)

2 hours later…

SmokeDetector

1:00 PM

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body (41): Solving Fuzzy stochastic differential equations driven by fractal Brownian motion‭ by louis‭ on math.SE

3 hours later…

Peter

3:36 PM

undelete-vote , I think we have to be prepared for a second one.

Peter

3:48 PM

downvote/delete

Koro

4:25 PM

Q: Suppose $f \in L^{p_0} \cap L^{\infty}$ for some $p_0 < \infty$. Prove that: $\lim_{p \rightarrow \infty} \|f\|_p=\|f\|_{\infty}$

Suppose $f \in L^{p_0} \cap L^{\infty}$ for some $p_0 < \infty$. Prove that: $\lim_{p \rightarrow \infty} \|f\|_p=\|f\|_{\infty}$ My attempt: So the first step seems to be showing that the limit exists at all. I'm having trouble showing this, I feel like I'm getting a massive case of tunnel ...

real-analysis measure-theory

Please open this. The suggested link below the post does not talk about existence of the limit.

postmortes

@Koro Yes it does. In both the question and both of the answers.

Koro

@postmortes I'm afraid. I'm probably missing something. OP says-"In a space of measure 1, $\|f\|_p$ is increasing ...". And as noted in the comments, the general case seems to be missing in the post (including both the answers as well).

Peter

5:16 PM