CURED - 2017-11-24

1:57 AM

Every question from this user is a problem statement question.

Zachary Selk

2:27 AM

close voted all his question

SmokeDetector

2:37 AM

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

11 hours later…

1:31 PM

@SmokeDetector PSQ, 2 more delete votes to go.

@amWhy Open for deletion.

@user21820 Deleted, unstarring.

@SimplyBeautifulArt :D o/

@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.

2:06 PM

@SimplyBeautifulArt All of them now gone! :D

Did

2:42 PM

(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.

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?

3:05 PM

→ 9 messages moved to Calculus and analysis

3 hours later…

A: explicit upper bound of TREE(3)

5:58 PM

@user21820

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.

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

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

We discussed this before, I think.

Did we?

>.<

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".

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

6:01 PM

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

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...

That too might be true.

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

@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.

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

6:51 PM

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