CURED - 2017-11-24

« first day (2143 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2651 days later) »

amWhy

01:57

Every question from this user is a problem statement question.

Zachary Selk

02:27

close voted all his question

SmokeDetector

02:37

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Pattern-matching website in answer: Work of Ted Kaczynski by Guest on math.SE

11 hours later…

Simply Beautiful Art

13:31

@SmokeDetector PSQ, 2 more delete votes to go.

@amWhy Open for deletion.

@user21820 Deleted, unstarring.

amWhy

@SimplyBeautifulArt :D o/

Simply Beautiful Art

@amWhy PSQ from the same user.

Low-quality PSQ.

^ Doesn't answer the question.

Another PSQ, multiple parts.

@ZacharySelk Self-delete.

@amWhy One more delete vote.

amWhy

14:06

@SimplyBeautifulArt All of them now gone! :D

Did

14:42

(Warning: snarky thought ahead.) In view of this recent question and of the tons of similar cases that preceded it, I think that every question answered by these two users (MR and DrSG) should be automatically closed. Pretty sure that the rule would give raise to very few false positive cases, if any... And this would allow the rest of us to turn to more productive tasks than to monitor the activity of the two characters.

Simply Beautiful Art

lol

@Did How about every question answered by only those two and none others with negative score on the question after 3 hours?

math.stackexchange.com/revisions/2535228/2

Hm, why the community edit?

user21820

15:05

→ 9 messages moved to Calculus and analysis

3 hours later…

Simply Beautiful Art

17:58

@user21820

A: explicit upper bound of TREE(3)

The underlying rationale will be as follows. The Tree(n) question can be translated into a problem of the length of effectively given bad sequences. I think this goes directly back to Friedman. Such effectively given bad sequences can be mapped into effectively descending sequences of ordinals us...

in Mathematics, 2 mins ago, by Simply Beautiful Art

Doesn't seem super helpful, though it does present an underlying theme on how one would construct bounds... anywho, it's already mentioned by Deedlit:

in Mathematics, 2 mins ago, by Simply Beautiful Art

It was proven by Diana Schmidt in her thesis that the largest order type of any extension of the ordering on trees in TREE(n) is $\theta(\Omega^\omega \omega,0)$. According to Weiermann, we can use this to extract an upper bound of about that level of the fast-growing hierarchy. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/1950116/… — Deedlit Oct 22 '16 at 12:52

in Mathematics, 1 min ago, by Simply Beautiful Art

@SimplyBeautifulArt Also, the last few lines of the answer are quite subjective.

user21820

@SimplyBeautifulArt So what do you want to do with it?

Simply Beautiful Art

Well I downvoted it, since it doesn't seem particularly helpful.

It also fails to explain how one would apply such techniques.

At least to me

user21820

We discussed this before, I think.

Simply Beautiful Art

Did we?

>.<

user21820

In my opinion (which I must have stated the last time), it is probably clear enough to the experts in that field.

And that it is indeed true that "until now very few people were interested in it".

Simply Beautiful Art

18:01

> Moreover the material would be considered as "folklore" and so a publication might be turned down.

A: Where does TREE(n) sit on the Fast Growing Hierarchy?

The key piece of information that determines the growth rate of TREE(n) is the length, or maximal order type, of $\omega$-labeled rooted trees ordered by label and infemum preserving embedding. Now, this ordering is a well-partial order, but not a well order, so it does not immediately correspon...

user21820

That too might be true.

Simply Beautiful Art

It doesn't really sound like that's the case according to the end of Deedlit's answer

user21820

@SimplyBeautifulArt They are not contradictory. He is claiming that expanding his answer into a publication-worthy article may not actually result in a publication. Deedlit himself stated in a comment" According to Weiermann, we can use this to extract an upper bound of about that level of the fast-growing hierarchy", which implies it hasn't been published yet.

Simply Beautiful Art

:-/ well I still don't like the answer lol

amWhy

18:51

Indeed, it's a great approach! (Who cares if it's snarky) :)

amWhy

19:19

@SimplyBeautifulArt open for deletion

@SimplyBeautifulArt deleted by asker.

@SimplyBeautifulArt deleted.

This question has been closed and is open for deletion

This question by the same user needs one more delete vote