« first day (4625 days earlier)      last day (35 days later) » 

Ѕᴀᴀᴅ
Ѕᴀᴀᴅ
1:45 AM
C1, C2, C3, C4
D1, D2, D3, D4
rschwieb
rschwieb
2:36 AM
It's lane enough that I can't even. This post is seemingly an easy to find duplicate question in which the OP has an approach that won't work. Instead of addressing the approach that won't work, two users opted to post solutions which appear on the duplicates and promptly reaped copious upvotes. Now that the solutions have made it de-facto duplciation, do we just close as a dupe?
(cont) Someone is going to argue that an explanation for why the user's approach doesn't work would be a valid solution that isn't a duplicate.
Feeds
Feeds
3:15 AM
0
A: Requests for Reopen & Undeletion Votes (volume 01/2022 - today)

SriniI request reopening of this question. I had answered this question when it was open. It was closed with a reason of "need details/clarity". I suggested an edit to improve the question that addressed this lack of details. I do not know whether my edit was reviewed. But soon after that the question...

Jyrki Lahtonen
Jyrki Lahtonen
3:43 AM
@rschwieb I once tried to summarize the issue in meta. God, that was five years ago!
Anyway, given that you seem to support action, I simply dupehammered it.
 
6 hours later…
Ѕᴀᴀᴅ
Ѕᴀᴀᴅ
10:07 AM
D5
 
2 hours later…
rschwieb
rschwieb
11:50 AM
@JyrkiLahtonen I was on the fence so I didn't dupehammer it. It's an unfortunate situation.
I was toying with the idea that the egregiously duplicated solutions should be deleted and the post edited to emphasize the user's interest in disproving the given statement.
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
12:31 PM
@rschwieb As long as solution verification exists as a tag, I'm all for this.
Though I do think that a lot of people use the tag as a way of avoiding closure, as evidenced by the fact that so many of these askers give the green check to duplicate answers which have nothing to do with the post of the proof being questioned.
2
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
1:06 PM
@JyrkiLahtonen This is a good example of why it is important to try to close dupes asap - even if one hasn't yet found the best dupe target(s).
Feeds
Feeds
1:18 PM
0
A: Requests for Reopen & Undeletion Votes (volume 01/2022 - today)

baltazarReopen I asked for examples of a particular construction which is well-known to be poorly covered in the literature -- homology with local coefficients. I stated specifically three examples I can't work out but would like to understand. I stated that I have read the portion of a known textbook (D...

 
3 hours later…
Feeds
Feeds
3:49 PM
0
Q: Can Dickson's conjecture with $b_i=1$ be proven for one $n,$ given that there are no obvious divisibility restrictions preventing this from happening?

Adam RubinsonI was reading this answer to it's question, and came across Dickson's Conjecture, because I was independently investigating the case where $b_i=1$ for $i\in\{1,2,\ldots,k\}.$ Dickson's conjecture says essentially that for any $a_1,a_2 \dotsc a_k$ and $b_1, b_2 \dotsc b_k$, there are infinitely ma...

number-theory elementary-number-theory chinese-remainder-theorem open-problem twin-primes
 
5 hours later…
Joe
Joe
8:57 PM
@rschwieb: Apologies for answering a duplicate question. I've edited my answer to better address the given solution in the solution book.
user2661923
user2661923
9:55 PM
I am lobbying for this very bizarre question to be re-opened. The OP is asking why, when a specific value (i.e. x = 4.01) satisfies 0 < |x - 4| < 0.5, such a value does not then automatically serve as a counter example to the false assertion that |x^2 - 16| < 1 is then (automatically) implied. For a fairly new student, with under developed intuition, it is a reasonable question.
In fact, while analytically the OP has gone off the rails, at the same time, the OP is honestly confused. Further, the OP clearly showed work in an attempt to explore his bizarre thinking. I see no reason why this question should have been closed.

« first day (4625 days earlier)      last day (35 days later) »