« first day (4274 days earlier)      last day (298 days later) » 

1:37 PM
@BillDubuque The thing is, I don't think that we actually disagree all that much. All I'm saying is that a post with a lot of links in it raises suspicion, since both spammers and cranks like to include a lot of links. There is a correlation between large numbers of links, and low quality posts. Thus seeing a lot of links should raise a red flag.
Of course, investigation of the actual links themselves should be done before action is taken, and sometimes (as in the case above), it turns out that the links are helpful and useful.
And, yes, I think that posts should contain more explanatory links, but that simply isn't the way the site is at the moment. You are arguing in favor of ideals---I am looking at the pragmatics of moderating content on the site.
 
2 hours later…
0
Q: Where can i find a proof that the allowable dropping times on the collatz conjecture are $\lfloor1 + n \cdot \log_2(3)\rfloor$

Wagner MartinsIn the shortcut collatz function $$ T(x) = \begin{cases} \frac{x}{2} & \text{if } x \equiv 0 \pmod{2} \\[2ex] \frac{3x + 1}{2} & \text{if } x \equiv 1 \pmod{2} \end{cases} $$ The dropping time of $n$ is the number of steps it takes for $n$ to reach a value smaller than the initial seed. That woul...

4:38 PM
@XanderHenderson Yes, it may be a matter of perspective. I was ruling out obvious spam since anyone can easily detect that. The post mentioned here was obviously not spam, which was why I was curious as to why it was mentioned here. Unfortunately the author never replied to that (sincere) question, so I am still puzzled about that.
@BillDubuque Yeah, I don't know why the post was mentioned here, other than a lack of due diligence.
 
2 hours later…
6:27 PM
1 message moved to ­Trash

« first day (4274 days earlier)      last day (298 days later) »