Great typo:

The real protective plane. ;)

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive answer detected, potentially bad keyword in answer, toxic answer detected (161): Solving the next differential equations by Akash Roy on math.SE

@amWhy @Did @MikeMiller: Bad answer to a good question.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive answer detected, toxic answer detected, blacklisted user (228): Inconsistent lagrange multiplier by Akash Roy on math.SE

Good heads up.

@SmokeDetector good bot

@SmokeDetector good bot

Question HERE to reopen.

By the way my answer was asked for deletion,if someone can explain why I would be grateful. Thanks

@user170039 As I've explained in the comments, in a duscussion with RRL, firstly the question seems interesting to me since I see that also some expert user had some doubd or matter for a discussion on that.

Secondly, I can agree that thoughts presented by the asker can be considered poor but I think that it is a genuine discussion made within his/her range of knowledge. I really disagree with closure.

We should support user wh try to do their best within their knowledge and help them to improve their skills.

@user170039 I'd say there is some context and thoughts made by the asker after 'Is it true?' but the opinion of whether it's sufficient differs between users.

@user170039 We are assuming esplicitely $x>0$ here, if you are referring to the question.

In this particular case I'm slightly tempted to side with gimusi. I've added some comments/questions below the OP and we can see if there is a reasonable answer to be written up. I do think the answers currently up are rather bad though. I think to give an answer which doesn't lend itself to misinterpretation a much more holistic view needs to be taken regarding how and why we actually define the exponential and powers in general.

I don't agree with reopening as is but the OPoster seems to be off some longish standing on MathSE so possibly they will be able to fix the question up.

Some PSQs: 1, 2, 3

@amWhy @XanderHenderson: Non-math here.

Either duplicate or unclear or too broad or opinion-based.

PSQs up for deletion: 1, 2, 3.

4, 5, 6.

More PSQs: 7, 8, 9.

10, 11, 12.

13, 14, 15.

@user21820 Available for deletion.

Great!

→ 3 messages moved to This is the Realm of Simply Beautiful Art

@user21820 Answer was self-deleted.

@amWhy Great!

@user21820 I just unpinned it from the side-bar.

Oh thanks I forgot it was pinned.

@DRF Nothing about the question has changed. I see no reason it should be open now if it shouldn't have been before.

@MikeMiller I wasn't arguing for it to be reopened. I even say so in the last part of that comment. I was just saying that it's worth watching. The OP is not a first time poster or something, so hopefully he will come back to edit. I agree that as is it's not reopenable.

Ah I missed your last comment there, I apologize.

Questions to look at: 1 2 3 4

@CarlMummert The first two are terrible (the "try" is completely unrelated), but can you explain what's wrong with the third?

Source and motivation

But everyone should evaluate them by their own standards, which may be different than mine. I don't think that PSQ + some attempt that doesn't work is substantially better than just a PSQ. The extra content is just "contexty".

@CarlMummert Ok thanks! I'll pass on that one, but I understand others may expect more than effort.

The 4th one seems to be self deleted now

Yea.

@CarlMummert: Could you also have a look at this non-math?

The one by user1391868

?

Yea. It's simply wrong to say "your experiment ... proves the infinitude", and the rest is not at all helpful for the question.

OK, I see that point

The other downvoted answer is worse, but I ran out of votes.

@user21820 I think that I am largely in agreement with @CarlMummert on this one: I generally don't find "effort" to provide useful context. ;)

Reopen votes needed here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3028028 MSE is for mathematicians of all levels

@RobertFrost I am not sure that I see why I should vote to reopen the question. It was not closed because it was of the wrong mathematical level, but because it is without context. Your own comment to the question confirms this: there is additional information regarding the background of the asker which would be helpful to establish context.

@RobertFrost Effort, source citation, and/or motivation are required at all levels. Stop appealing to factors that play no role.

@XanderHenderson To my mind, they gave their thoughts on the problem and I thought there's very little ambiguity what level they're at.

@RobertFrost Just because a user is at an earlier level of mathematics knowledge doesn't exempt them from providing sufficient context in the question. Again, please stop holding double standards for users.

@amWhy assumed certainty is a logical fallacy.

Poor HNQ

@TheSimpliFire Sigh, how is that a HNQ? It doesn't even have the problem mathjaxed.

@DRF Because the title has no MathJax and answers have attracted votes

@TheSimpliFire oh does MathJax in the title preclude a question becoming HNQ?

Yep

That's rather unfortunate. I would say it generally makes the question better. Though not always.

@RobertFrost: MSE is for all levels, but that question does lack context

@DRF It's now no longer a HNQ!

@CarlMummert i don't know what they would add

@TheSimpliFire I'm guessing the downvote helped?

First, they could add the source of the problem. From there, depending on the source, there are other things they could add.

@DRF Yes, and I decorated the title a bit :P

@TheSimpliFire Hehe. Not sure if I think that's correct use of editing power but yeah at least it doesn't make such a poor question stand out on HNQ.

@RobertFrost You added a comment asking for clarification. I find it rather disingenuous of you to claim that you don't know what else they could add...

For example, is this a problem from a text, or from a class? If from a class, which one, and what theorems have they seen recently? If a text, which one? For example, are they in a context of abstract algebra, or number theory, or intro to proofs, or something else?

@DRF I think the edit's fine as it's more informative than the original

@CarlMummert thanks

@XanderHenderson not really because if they knew to state they had covered prime factorisation (which they obviously have) they would already have the answer

The more pressing question is whether they have seen Euclid's lemma

I think they know Euclid's lemma? I think they could say if they saw the problem in number theory, abstract algebra, intro to proof, somewhere else - and that context would help inform me about whether the goal of the problem was for them to apply Euclid's lemma

That's why I think the problem is missing context - because the OP didn't say where they got the problem, I don't know how to respond to it

@CarlMummert ok i've helped them with your guidance

Consider for deletion:

1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6

7. 8. 9.

Oops, I've run out of delete votes myself, and will have to return to vote on three of the above posts!!

@amWhy Done.

@JoséCarlosSantos Thanks!!

@amWhy For the sake of transparency, all nine questions posted for deletion were obtained from page 3 of this search, and culled from the lowest voted posts, primarily closed two days ago.