« first day (2250 days earlier)      last day (529 days later) » 

12:20 AM
um... what?! (this is a very confusing, possibly nonsensical post)
 
12:53 AM
We need, again, another delete vote here on a question that has been twice deleted, @Did, @user21820, @SimplyBeautifulArt, @ZacharySelk, @ProfessorVector.
@CarlMummert, also, please note the comment and link immediately above
 
1:48 AM
In the current situation we are likely to end up with a question which might get repeatedly deleted and undeleted. I've mentioned in the comments that the solution I am for is posting a new question about the same problem. For example, version looking like this revision could IMO be fine. (The generalization mentioned in revision 11 could probably make an interesting separate question.)
 
@MartinSleziak I think you could go ahead and do this. I'll lock the other question.
 
@MartinSleziak I've never objected to that; and like you, I suggested to robjohn that he post a new question. That's always been a fine idea. But aside from you, neither robjohn nor the undeleters have been motivated to post a separate, improved question. But I am fully in support of the idea.
2
 
I suppose that solution like that could be satisfactory to both sides. Several users pointed out that they think it might be useful to have question like this on the site. And this also got some support from users who voted to delete - see amWhy's message just above mine and also this older message.
The above was attempt to briefly summarize the input from various users in the discussion about this question. (At least the way I see it - it is by no means perfect and it's probably impossible to summarize the long discussion both in chat and in comments in single message.)
@quid Just before you posted your message, I was about to suggest to wait a bit before reposting. (It seems that there's relatively heated discussion about the question still going on. I am not sure whether posting the new copy now makes things better or worse.)
 
But if you think that this makes the situation calmer, I have no problem posting the question. (And I'll explicitly add that I do not care much about who posts the question - in case somebody else is willing to do so.)
 
2:06 AM
@MartinSleziak it seems at least two out of the five voters to delete explicitly encouraged an improved repost. From that side there should not be much or any opposition. From the other, at the moment they have a deleted and locked question. I assume they'll not be unhappy about the repost either. But one never knows.
 
Ok, I have posted a new question here: How to show $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{H_{n+1}}{n(n+1)}=2$? It is rather similar (almost identical) to revision 12 of the old question. We will see how other users react.
Moving (merging) answers of the original question to the new one might be a reasonable thing to do - it's probably up to moderators. (I don't think it is necessary to flag for moderators' attention, as two of the moderators have been involved with the question.)
I was not sure whether add a comment linking the robjohn's meta post under the new question. On one hand, it would be fair representation of where I've seen the question, but the disadvantage would be that the comment like that would draw more attention to the ongoing discussion and perhaps increase the tension.
So I have decided not to post such a link there - of course if somebody else thinks the meta discussion should be linked, feel free to do so in the comments.
 
@MartinSleziak That's what I think is best (not linking it), but as you say, it's open for anyone to link to in a comment.
 
Now there is already one comment mentioning meta (but without link):
Thank you for doing this, Martin -- I presume you'll mention this in the relevant Meta thread? — pjs36 3 mins ago
It's getting quite late in my timezone (and also tomorrow I might be offline for several hours) - so it's possible the I'll not be able to respond to comments. (It might be actually a good thing. We will see how this experiments works out in the end.)
I have also mentioned generalization of that question - which is mentioned as part b of the problem in the book I'm linking. If somebody wants to post a question about it, I am perfectly ok with that. If not, I might post a question about it later - but definitely not now. (I do not think posting two closely related questions after each other would be ideal.)
 
 
5 hours later…
Did
7:17 AM
For a change, let me suggest to have a look at this excellent answer, so much more in the spirit of what MSE should look like than these neverending open or concealed tries to disqualify downvotes per se, and/or these neverending demands that this or that no-context question should be reopened because... well, because one answered it, period.
 
 
6 hours later…
1:11 PM
But @MartinSleziak Your question was not the question that was asked, which robjohn etal answered. Surely, if he or others want to answer your question, they can answer the more appropriate question. I have no doubts that there are some who very reasonably (and IMHO rightfully) walked away from bothering to answer the former question due to it's (lack of) quality. So I'm afraid I don't think the answers from the former should be merged to the new, better question.
So, for an even playing field, I think anyone who wants to answer your question, should post their answer, whether they copy and paste their posts (former answerers), or posting afresh. There's no need to gift to former answerers with the rep they yielded by catering to a user with a lousy question. Level-playing field, methinks.
 
1:43 PM
@user170039 Incidentally, the question history shows that people have fought over it (closed, reopened, community wiki, locked, unlocked, protected, defaced, rolled back...). I wish I could close such questions but you should know how futile it is.
@Did @amWhy @ZacharySelk: Please consider what to do with these mathematically misleading answers: 1, 2.
@MartinSleziak I always like the new questions that you post, because they are good questions. I too don't care who posts a new question after getting rid of a poor question, as long as the new question is a good question. =)
 
2:19 PM
i like this answer math.stackexchange.com/a/800827/11260 it's good prose
 
2:50 PM
This semi-crank post is up for deletion.
PSQ on the HNQ again. @Did @amWhy @ZacharySelk @XanderHenderson: Time to close.
2
 
3:30 PM
Can anyone give me any HINT regarding the integration of $\frac{1}{1+v^{4}}$...?
 
@NehalSamee You can ask in the main chat:

 Mathematics

Associated with Math.SE; for both general discussion & math qu...
But anyway hint: Partial fractions using complex numbers would work.
 
4:10 PM
@user21820 Also a duplicate of (at least) 3 older Q&As.
 
Did
4:22 PM
@user21820 Or, decomposition in R[X]. :-)
 
@Did Oops I didn't see that lol! =)
 
@SmokeDetector Essentially a repost of math.stackexchange.com/q/2686600/42969 ...
 
Did
@SmokeDetector Is the OP a known crank, à la the infamous Thierno M. Sow?
 
4:57 PM
@PeterSheldrick But this is not Stack Exchange Prose, is it? Why did you draw my attention to that?! :( Most of those answers are absurdly upvoted nonsense.
 
5:16 PM
well if you only dont use any prose in your math it becomes very hard to read for non experts
 
5:26 PM
Hmmm, at Stack Exchange Mathematics, I wouldn't expect very many gardeners among the users. ;) On the other hand, sheer prose, undiluted by logic, thought or knowledge of basic facts and definitions, is very hard to read for experts.
 
 
2 hours later…
7:17 PM
@ProfessorVector and experts alike... People don't receive Nobel prizes when they aren't able to write up scribbles and scratches or code or a menagerie of symbols without being able to communicate what this all means in professional journals and such, or if they cannot coherently speak to other professionals, and students alike. I never took Peter to be addressing anything but mathematical prose. Why you feel you must find something to disagree with in most folks posts is not based on mathematics.
It's something you have had a habit of doing. Even if you agree with "most of what a person says" you focus on the 0.5% that you disagree about. Smile once in a while; say something kind once in a while, and I'm sorry if you don't know how to do that.
 
Mathematicians don't ever get Nobel prizes. I feel posts at MSE should have traces of logic and mathematics in them. And I smile far more often than you may know. But if I see a sense to be here (CRUDE), it will include to prevent another thread like the one Peter referred to. How much confusion can you get out of the trivial fact that positional systems can't provide unique representations? And how much fun can you get out of enforcing that on users confused to begin with?
 
7:42 PM
@ProfessorVector Having logic and mathematics in a post is great, and expected here; but I challenge you to say anything of the things you say here without using prose, and using good prose with math and logic is better than using bad prose with math and logic. You spoke as in way that suggests prose and logic are antithetical. They are not. That's my only point. I agree with your first sentence. And I am certain Peter agrees as well. I am not arguing about the specific post, but you never ...
addressed your issues with the post Peter linked to until just now. You were rather illogical, in fact, in suggesting that prose and logic are antithetical. I now understand what you meant, given your last comment. I'm not here to argue; I think we need to say what we mean. Communication is a two-way street. You can't expect users to know exactly what you are trying to say, when you don't say it to begin with.
Anyway, @ProfessorVector, I can readily relate, and it's hard not to have appreciated your sense of humor by now ;-)
 
Well, the joke is: here, I'm restricted to prose, and I can but hope it's not too illogical (given English is not my first language). Still, I just feel sick seeing (allegedly) mathematical posts with dozens or even hundreds of upvotes not making any sense, and I may even ask myself what I'm doing here.
 
 
2 hours later…
@ProfessorVector I ask myself that same question almost every day now, sadly.
 
@SimplyBeautifulArt ahem? Oh, I get it! I din't see you linking to an earlier comment.
 
10:46 PM
@SimplyBeautifulArt Probably one of my earliest delete votes for non-spam/non-offensive posts. But then again, it is a rather offensive post when you think about it!
 
@SimplyBeautifulArt Yeah, I just noticed that today, too!
I like this comment template which actually explains why a one might flag a poor question. But it could also work with "Unfortunately, I feel I have to vote to close this question..." (instead of or in addition to the flag comment: Unfortunately, I feel I have to flag this question..." because the ...because... could be used in either case.
 
11:09 PM
 

« first day (2250 days earlier)      last day (529 days later) »