« first day (4343 days earlier)      last day (92 days later) » 

5:58 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, bad phone number in body, bad phone number in title, potentially bad keyword in body (393): Windmill Money loa n Customer car e Number+{91}9038279729*//9038116105🤣call me..‭ by Rakesh Kumar‭ on math.SE
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, bad phone number in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer (189): Windmill Money loa n Customer car e Number+{91}9038279729*//9038116105🤣call me..‭ by Rakesh Kumar‭ on math.SE
 
6:40 AM
C/D Not a question but an attempt tp publish rediscovery of old well-known results, and advertise their paper on such.
 
 
1 hour later…
7:43 AM
 
 
6 hours later…
1:51 PM
Little context, and a duplicate to boot (see my comments). Integrating $\int \frac{x+3}{x^2+5x+2}$‭ - samsamradas‭ 2023-12-02 20:25:59Z
 
2:13 PM
Another not-very-useful PEMDAS question. Order of operations clarification‭ - Tim‭ 2023-11-30 15:27:40Z
 
2:39 PM
Is this useful? Don't we already have a ton of questions about this integral? Why are we forced to use double-angle identity to integrate $(cos(x))^2$‭ - Youssef Darwish‭ 2023-12-03 07:26:11Z
 
3:02 PM
Please undelete this.
See above for the meta post.
 
3:21 PM
@XanderHenderson what does 20k+ mean here?
 
3:55 PM
@Jakobian That trash is automatically generated by the script I use to post questions here.
It means that only people with 20k+ XP can vote to delete at the moment.
 
Oh I see. Thank you
 
 
2 hours later…
5:58 PM
@Shaun If the post is undeleted and the post has negative score by the time the next round of RemoveDeadQuestions is run, it will be automatically deleted again. Do you plan to make any efforts to avoid this situation, like editing the post?
 
@Shaun That question was downvoted, then deleted by the community user because that is what happens to downvoted, inactive questions. I don't see any reason to undelete it---obviously, the community was not interested enough in the question to do anything about it, and you were not interested enough in the question to do anything to improve it before it was automatically deleted.
 
6:30 PM
I'll put a bounty on it in order to get the type of answer I'm after; namely, one that addresses the proof-verification aspect of it, not just the "you need better notation" criticism.
Also, I need easy access to it as part of my research.
Please?
 
@Shaun Can you visit the link and see the whole of the post and comments? I've been able to do that here (and on other stack exchanges where I don't have so much rep) when a post of mine has been deleted. If so, then I don't see why "easy access" is an important reason for undeletion - you can just copy the relevant info out of the post and email it to yourself or something like that.
 
I can't always log in quickly.
 
you can just copy the relevant info out of the post and email it to yourself or something like that.
2
 
Fair enough, but please undelete it; I'd still like to put a bounty on it.
 
6:45 PM
Anyways, you really ought to try following the advice in the comments - if you improve your notation, the proof is immediately clear. I don't think there's much to be gained by undeleting your question, so I'm not going to vote to undelete it.
 
It's not my notation; it's the notation of the authors of the preprint. But that's besides the matter. I want to know how to improve my attempt at a proof.
That's the point of the question after all . . .
The result is in a preprint. I'm not interested in whether it's true. I'm interested in how I've tried to prove it and how to get a better understanding. I'll be using the notation in question in my research. The feedback doesn't help much.
 
This is like saying "since this source is in Linear-A, I'm going to write my paper in Linear-A". You can and do have a duty to improve things for other mathematicians. This is getting somewhat far afield from the topic of undeleting your post; I'm going to stop responding now and I'll be moving further off-topic discussion out of this room.
 

« first day (4343 days earlier)      last day (92 days later) »