@michaelhardy: what was the purpose of this edit, which is invisible ? — Yves Daoust2 hours ago
Unnecessary edit rolled back. It bothers me that all of MH's edits here have been unhelpful. Here, it was merely a choice of style for formatting of LaTeX. In the question and haqnatural's answer, more very minor LaTeX edits. I think such behavior is rather unnecessary and shouldn't be done. — Simply Beautiful Art2 mins ago
@MichaelHardy IMHO, such details in LaTeX will bother me from time to time. But unless the edit comes with something substantial or alters the readability (e.g. sin → \sin), don't make such edits yourself. You can leave comments explaining such minor things instead, to avoid causing edits which may be unnecessary and unseen. Editing for them may not be seen as helpful, and comments explaining are probably more valuable to those who do not know the ins and outs of MathJax.
Oh, whoops. Could some people review this question? In particular, check the answer....
@SimplyBeautifulArt hahahaha... They take the audit questions from the pool of answers! The bad, the good, and the ugly.
@SimplyBeautifulArt The worst of all, which are computer created (or rather, computer-generated vandalism of posts) are the "suggested edit" edits. I have absolutely no compassion for anyone who fails a "suggested edit" audit/test!
@YvesDaoust : I think I was looking at it and decided nothing needed to be edited, but decided there was nothing. However, putting in a blank space often alters the way the code appears in the editing window, by preventing line-breaks from being in strange places, thereby improving legibility to the person who is editing.
@SimplyBeautifulArt : Really? All of my edits are unhelpful? You would lose that argument if you pursue it, to put it mildly. Often I have been thanked for helping people with MathJax code. In fact almost daily for some years. And haqnatural is...
... posting code written by one of those software packages that write the MathJax code for you. That stuff is harder to edit than normal code, and the fact is, some people -- many people -- learn to use MathJax by looking at examples here. And those who use that software package post code that sets terrible examples of MathJax usage.
@MichaelHardy You can't ping Yves here. Go to main.
@MichaelHardy No, I do not think all of your edits are unhelpful. But all of your edits on that post thread I consider unhelpful. Surely I will agree with most your edits, but not here and not today.
@MichaelHardy The program exists for a reason. And I'll say, it accomplishes that reason fairly well for a program. You think that it's a horrible example of MathJax, but does it display as intended? (Personally, I will agree that I would never write MathJax like that, but why complain about a problem that isn't a problem? haqnatural is no new user, and gets by fairly well.)
@SimplyBeautifulArt : Did I do more than one edit in that thread? Did you understand my explanation of why I did it? And my other explanation, of why I edited haqnatural's post?
@MichaelHardy I see that you've admitted the uselessness of your edit to Yves' answer, and I don't see any explanations for the edits on the main question.
@MichaelHardy I've already discussed what I've thought about your edits in relation to haqnatural's answer and am still awaiting your response: "You think that it's a horrible example of MathJax, but does it display as intended?"
There is no right or wrong to how someone manages their MathJax code, so long as it displays properly. You may think it is horrible, for example, to golf the code down to the absolute least amount of characters possible. You may think it is horrible to have an excessive amount of characters. I don't know, and frankly, I don't care, because I write my code to display math and it works. Period.
There is something wrong with MathJax code that displays properly if it teaches people to use MathJax badly, which will quickly lead to things not displaying properly.
I did not admit the uselessness of my edit; rather I explained its usefulness above.
$a^{\frac{1}{2}}\neq\sqrt{a}$.
Try $a=0$.
$\sqrt{0}=0$ and $0^{\frac{1}{2}}$ is not defined.
Now, definitions.
The square root of the non-negative number $a$ (we'll write it so: $\sqrt{a})$ it's non-negative number $b$ for which $b^2=a$.
If we want to work with the function $f(x)=a^x...
@LeakyNun The "nowadays" factor in your remark escapes me but I think it is an established fact that anybody can reach around 50k rep by posting mainly low quality answers. The user responsible of the "answer" you link to is indeed an egregious example. There are other well known cases (say, DrSG). The mystery to me is why the community lets these users impact the site so negatively on such long time periods...
@Did At least these two post some reasonably good answers. There are high-rep users who got there by farming calculus questions, and who have seriously dubious grasp of mathematics. Can't remember the user now...
I don't see how this or this or this are useful questions...
@MartinR You are not overlooking anything. I detest answers that do not even bother to answer the question, nor point out serious conceptual errors. But we have to wait for the option to delete.
@user21820 And an answer should not start with "Honestly I don't think this is a good question, because as it stands, I think an answer to it must necessarily be primarily opinion based."
@user21820 Note that if you delete your answer there, with a negative score and low views, that question will be removed when the script removing old negative-scored answerless questions next time. Which, iirc, will be either midnight, or 3am (UTC).
Has anyone else come across this user: math.stackexchange.com/users/231063/william-balthes. He seems only to be answering posts close to a year old, and earlier than that too. Many came up in the low-quality review today, and I checked additional answers he's posted today.
continued... $\uparrow$ The user I'm speaking of is named William Balthes. This is one of his answers I came across today: math.stackexchange.com/a/2492288/9003
$a^{\frac{1}{2}}\neq\sqrt{a}$.
Try $a=0$.
$\sqrt{0}=0$ and $0^{\frac{1}{2}}$ is not defined.
Now, definitions.
The square root of the non-negative number $a$ (we'll write it so: $\sqrt{a})$ it's non-negative number $b$ for which $b^2=a$.
If we want to work with the function $f(x)=a^x...
