[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in answer, no whitespace in answer, repeating characters in answer: Evans PDE chapter 2 problem 4 by ssdsda on math.SE

@amWhy @Did @Jack: I consider this answer wrong because it says we "assume that 0.999... represents a real number when we prove that it necessarily equals 1" (no there is no assumption; rather it's a definition!) and misleading because it says that the intuition that 0.999... falls a bit short of 1 has "a rigorous implementation in the context of a hyperreal number system" and "respects student intuitions and can be helpful in learning the calculus".

Also note its links to its author's publications. What do you all think?

This and this and this are pure PSQs.

@user21820 I am not sure whether I agree with that assessment, but I remember meta.MO discussion about a post by that user. Here is a quote from that question: "It seems to me that this question is primarily about advertising a new preprint of the author, and does not actually have any content."

@MartinSleziak Indeed that is the case in my opinion, but that is more subjective than the more objective facts I mentioned first.

Personally, I do not have a problem if somebody links to their own lecture notes or publication - I have certainly done so in the past. (But it is probably better if the authorship is mentioned in the post, or at least if it's clear from the username that it's the same person.)

@user21820 This was intended as a reaction to: "Also note its links to its author's publications." I am not sure I am qualified enough to make a judgement about the linked answer.

@MartinSleziak I didn't make any judgement on the links in my above comment. I asked the rest what they think about the "more objective" statements I made preceding "Also note ...".

@amWhy @Did: This answer is pedagogically unsound. Feel free to do as you wish.

PSQ

@amWhy Voted to close. Waiting for 1 more. =)

Please review math.stackexchange.com/questions/2421762/…

@DanielFischer Know that I can understand the very occasional use of a moderator privileges to unilaterally cast a vote, when necessary. The matter I am most upset about is his refusal or inability to discuss things rationally, instead of dictatorially. And mostly, I am upset about arjafi's only response being, to target me personally. So I'm really not sure what you mean by "resolution". It went far beyond whether the post should have been deleted or not.

While any/all discussion has been happening behind closed doors, what exactly the issue being discussed and needing resolution. Has there been any discussion or examination of arjafi's retaliation after I posted comments below his answer on meta that were critical. Unless this is also addressed, (not simply his vote to undelete an answer), I will likely leave MSE and SE. I know that is what arjafi is trying to push me to do.... so I resist doing so now.

@DanielFischer And why hasn't Shog9 or any of the higher ups contacted me? No doubt, arjafi's had the chance to tell whatever story he wanted to tell. Any way, I'm just getting burnt out on the whole project. I will try to be patient, but without knowing exactly what problem is being resolved,

@DanielFischer I'll say no more here. But know I have no clue of the "Things" that are being worked out. Or what the "problem/thing on which there is resolution, resolving. So it's all kind of hand-wavy to me.

@amWhy I understand that waiting around on progress on some issue that occupies one can be super frustrating, but consider it this way. As you describe it yourself the situation is complex and multifaceted and appears to be mostly an issue of humans interacting and not the status of one answer-post.

I would take "resolution" as trying to get past an event that seems to haven been unpleasant for various individuals involved and try to learn something from it and try to avoid it in the future etc.

@quid Thanks, @quid. I've got my fingers crossed, on that.

@quid Sorry for the double ping.