math.stackexchange.com/q/4589719/1092912 this should be closed. The question itself is very nonsensical and the answers aren't any better either.

How come such posts slip under the radar? Are they equipped with stealth technology?

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body (41): Getting the wrong answer on what seems like the most basic probability test‭ by Victoria‭ on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body (41): Getting the wrong answer on what seems like the most basic probability test ✏️‭ by Victoria‭ on math.SE

I think this one needs more focus.

this unlear post needs one more close-vote.

Please close this duplicate

please delete this claim of a proof of Goldbach for the powers of 2

see also this link

C1, C2, C3, C4, C5,

C6, C7, C8, C9

D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6,

D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12

Thank you , Saad for the final delete-vote.

Of course also to amWhy.

duplicates Should "What is the probability of being prime?" be closed as a duplicate of "Percentage of primes among the natural numbers"?

@SimplyBeautifulArt I would probably consider them duplicates - but since I can ask here (and I can also ask the OP), I did that first.

despite this has been deleted still claims occur that it is a valid proof.

cv-pls real-analysis PSQ+? Show that there exists θ in (13π/6, 7π/2) such that tan(2θ-5π)tan(3θ+4π) = 2/3‭ - Chamika Jayasinghe‭ 2022-12-07 09:51:52Z

cv-pls algebra-precalculus PSQ? Dupe? How can I find the exact number of digits in $123456789^{987654321}$ without a calculator?‭ - Shreyhaan Sarkar‭ 2022-11-21 05:14:36Z

cv-pls number-systems Does this meet the site's quality standards? Convert decimal value of 120.25 to binary‭ - Miss Mulan‭ 2022-11-26 14:59:13Z

→ 1 message moved to Math Mods' Office

@MartinSleziak I voted to close as a dupe. But why ping a user's post from roughly 490 days ago? Just confuses the rest rest of us. Better that you did comment below the question. Having done that, your reference to the author there is sufficient.

@amWhy I am pretty sure you know that - but if a user wasn't in a chatroom for some time they aren't pingable just by writing @username. So this is just a way to ping the spceific user in chat.

Pinging the user in chat seemed to me a better option than leaving a comment which would need deleting later.

@MartinSleziak He's no longer pingable here, either. So there you go.

Well, you're just confirming what I said.

I couldn't have pinged this particular user employing @username. That's why I opted for a different option. Just in case, I will include a reference to a relevant post on Meta Stack Exchange: Does a direct reply to a message in chat create a notification, no matter what age the message is?

@MartinSleziak No need for snark. In any case, had you included such context for all relevant users in this chat, I would have had no issue and would not have commented.

When people abandon the site, they're not here to object, and if you'll only act when they reply to your comments, six years later, you'll end up doing nothing.

@MartinSleziak Yes, I think so, and I have thus voted to close as a dupe.