« first day (2663 days earlier)      last day (1817 days later) » 

Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
2:02 AM
(It's the same as above - just in this way the title is readable here in chat.)
 
Ultradark
Ultradark
-1
Q: Asymptotic expansion of $Li^{-1}$ and zeros of $F(s)$ and $G(s)$

UltradarkIf you downvote please leave some constructive feedback. I would like to compare and visualize/gain insight about the zeros of two functions, $F(s)$ and $G(s).$ $$F(s)=\sum_{m=2}^\infty \pi(m)^{-s}=\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-s} (p_{n+1}-p_n)= \sum_{n=1}^\infty p_{n+1} (n^{-s}-(n+1)^{-s})\\ =\sum_{n...

asymptotics analytic-number-theory visualization zeta-functions analytic-continuation
feedback
 
YuiTo Cheng
YuiTo Cheng
The above revision should be a comment
 
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
@darijgrinberg In case you want to comment on the above.
@YuiToCheng I hope it's ok that I pinged the editor - they visited this room occasionally.
 
YuiTo Cheng
YuiTo Cheng
@MartinSleziak Normally I found such revision acceptable. But the above case seems a bit radical.
 
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
Well, as you can see, the previous time that darij grinberg came to this room, discussion revolved around a similar edit.
I'll let him to speak for himself - if he decides to do so.
 
YuiTo Cheng
YuiTo Cheng
2:15 AM
A compromise would be turning such a post into CW, as the ownership started to become blurred
 
Ultradark
Ultradark
Anyone want to comment on my post
 
darij grinberg
darij grinberg
Thanks for the ping @YuiToCheng: I personally try to avoid adding too much in the way of non-neutral statements, but here the edit is what turns a non-motivated question into a well-motivated one
Comments get routinely ignored by delete voters
 
YuiTo Cheng
YuiTo Cheng
@darijgrinberg Do you agree with my above compromise?
 
darij grinberg
darij grinberg
I'm fine with it, though it takes away Alex's well-deserved points
I guess Alex is the one who should be asked :)
 
YuiTo Cheng
YuiTo Cheng
2:32 AM
Besides, the proposal takes time. It seems MSE is not in favor of CW.
 
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
2:52 AM
@MartinSleziak The link is still pointing to the answer... Is it a mistake? — YuiTo Cheng 1 min ago
@YuiToCheng I suppose @darijgrinberg intended to link to the question - not to an answer. (In all cases.) Which is why I edited the post - but as you pointed out, I made a mistake there.
I am sure that if he wanted to link to an answer (for some reason), they will edit the link to the form they are satisfied with.
Of course, it would be possible to edit the links to the form [If $a^{2} \mid b^{2}$ then $a \mid b$](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/2497905) - so that the titles are visible even if the question is deleted.
I'll check once again, but I hope the links go to questions rather than to answers now.
I responded here - as not to leave on meta too many comments which are related more to copy-editing than to the actual question. (In any case, thanks for noticing.)
 
darij grinberg
darij grinberg
3:44 AM
I did intend to link to the answer, since fleablood's answer was the main reason why the topic should be preserved IMHO -- but it doesn't matter that much anymore now that it's UDs
*undeleted
 
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
@darijgrinberg Sorry, for my edit then.
 
darij grinberg
darij grinberg
np, it was well-intended and didn't break anything
 
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
As this is a mistake which many users often make - they will link to a comment or to an answer without realizing it - I though that this was the case here, too.
 
darij grinberg
darij grinberg
i am glad when that can be said about my edits :D
yeah... i sometimes do that on intent, but not that often
problem is, even if i really want to reference an answer, the answer still makes no sense without the question
 
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
It goes without saying - feel free to rollback, if you prefer to link to an answer (I think there were two links that I've changed).
 
darij grinberg
darij grinberg
3:52 AM
oh, only one was intended, and that one is now undeleted, so no harm done
 
 
10 hours later…
rschwieb
rschwieb
1:30 PM
Thanks for making a stab, but please refer to my comment [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49985684#49985684) From my point of view, the edit you've linked is as bad or worse than the problem I was trying to rectify. So of course, I don't think it is a good change.

I just don't think it's a good thing when an edit is made merely to suit the editor's personal preferences, and not in the service of any of the things listed in the "reasons to edit." The fact that the edit lead to more edit-creep in solutions to the problem is even worse.
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@rschwieb Could you please stop making false (rude) assertions such as *edit is made to suit personal preferences".
 
rschwieb
rschwieb
I won't be pinging you on the matter, but it hardly has to do with some courtesy due to you.
Previously, you talk about "lack of compromise" and "people forcing their own personal opinions" on others, yet in this episode, you "don't see a need to compromise" and you dismiss dissenting opinions not with reason but with weak rhetoric and name-calling.

For these reasons, this discussion is ingenuine and in bad faith on your part, so I will stop discussing it with you.
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@rschwieb Please stop posting complete nonsense.
 
rschwieb
rschwieb
As far as I can see, it is totally factual. A completely self-contained post that nobody took issue with for 8 years got translated into equivalent terms.

Apparently it's not even about equivalent terms, because my proposal did an equally good job of making people aware of the issue you raised. Apparently it was more about getting your way with the post.

And now, as I said, I don't care to further a discussion with an intransigent partner. It helps nobody.
3
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@rschwieb There was no need for you to make any changes. Please give it a rest. You are making a mountain out of a moe hill
We all have much better things to do with our time.
 
 
3 hours later…
Ultradark
Ultradark
5:00 PM
This seems like a pleasant room
 
rschwieb
rschwieb
Martin Argerami
 
 
1 hour later…
TheSimpliFire
TheSimpliFire
6:09 PM
@BillDubuque Do you think this should not be closed? (do you think it is not of low quality?) Especially with that question I linked, the bottom line is that there's only so much that opinions can be made 'personal'. It is evident that the reason for closure perfectly fits the content of the question. So, where do you think the question is good enough to be reopened?
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@TheSimpliFire Then please place it in the appropriate place, so that ther eis adequate context, etc.
 
TheSimpliFire
TheSimpliFire
@BillDubuque It is in response to your comment here.
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@TheSimpliFire Oops, prior comment got overwritten ... loathe these chat keybindngs.
 
TheSimpliFire
TheSimpliFire
That's fine
0
Q: Why does it take 5 close votes, to close a question?

CornmanI had a similar question a few days ago. There I was banned from review queues, because I seem to disagree on close votes to much. I promised to never review again, but I made a little experiment and visited again the close votes. I just voted to not close a question, when it was (in my opinion...

discussion closing
@BillDubuque I notice that in most of your arguments with regards to closure (and deletion to an extent) that you use subjectivity and the opinions of individuals to counter things like PSQs, LQQs etc. I do not believe that this issue is so subjective that there is no minimal acceptable standard, a standard which in fact most users here agree on.
2
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@TheSimpliFire The design of SE intends to let the community moderate inasmuch as possible. Moderators should not subvert such community moderation (except in very rare cases where they need to provide exception handling beyond what is built-in)
 
TheSimpliFire
TheSimpliFire
6:26 PM
Nowhere did I talk about moderators. Yes, indeed, SE is built on the basis of a community. However, at the beginning, MSE did not regulate its questions too well. It is due to this continuous stream of poorer-quality questions that some users have decided to tackle them, and on a utilitarian point of view, this rectification should be in place.
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@TheSimpliFire That's your personal opinion. There are diverse opinions on these highly subjective matters. Peruse the meta site for the 8 years before you joined to see just how diverse they are.
 
TheSimpliFire
TheSimpliFire
Partly, they're diverse as the rules of MSE have been more stringent as the years have gone by. I can understand that a few long-term users may be reluctant to follow up the changes. Questions that fit into the closure bracket now may be deemed acceptable 8 years ago.
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@TheSimpliFire You are making the (alas, common) mistake of confusing your personal opinion with rules.
 
TheSimpliFire
TheSimpliFire
@BillDubuque What if I refer the rules as those in 'How to Ask a Good Question' and all the reasons for closure, such as "This question is missing context or other details"?
4
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@TheSimpliFire Somene else's opinion is also not a "rule"
 
TheSimpliFire
TheSimpliFire
6:43 PM
@BillDubuque Then what counts as a rule for asking a quality question on MSE? From your reasoning, should profane language be allowed in questions because its unacceptability is merely an opinion?
2
 
SmokeDetector
SmokeDetector
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Mostly dots in body (51): Factorials of numbers by Kekeli on math.SE
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
7:24 PM
@TheSimpliFire The community decides that by voting according to their viewpoints. What is the point of emphasizing exceptional cases like profane language?
 
TheSimpliFire
TheSimpliFire
@BillDubuque Voting, OK. Here you'll find plentiful upvotes from "rules" to good question asking, to changes to 'off-topic' reasons. To raise such extreme cases like profanity in turn emphasises how ridiculous your comment was; any rule would become an opinion.
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@TheSimpliFire Again, the site is designed to be moderated by the community - inasmuch as possible.
 
TheSimpliFire
TheSimpliFire
I think I have said enough. This loop is unproductive.
 
Alexander Gruber
Alexander Gruber
7:44 PM
@rschwieb I think it can sometimes be constructive to edit a question to be more useful to future users, particularly after the original author has had his confusion resolved.
That was my intent with the edit.
 
Jyrki Lahtonen
Jyrki Lahtonen
@TheSimpliFire It is best to simply ignore Bill. He simply wants to continue reposting the same stuff ad infinitum, and chooses to call established policies "opinions". It's too bad, really, because he is capable of producing new content also.
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@JyrkiLahtonen One could say the same about your numerous meta rants. Tsk tsk!
But I find it quite sad that you continue to advocate ignoring the opinions of others rather than sincerely striving to understand them. That is the only way to achieve good compromises. But you don't seem to be interested in compromising. It's your way or no way.
@JyrkiLahtonen It's also sad that you stoop to yet more unfounded ad hominem attacks. I don't know where you get all these crazy impressions of others, but I can assure you once agian that you are way off the mark.
 
Jyrki Lahtonen
Jyrki Lahtonen
8:06 PM
@BillDubuque You do realize that only blocking PSQs is a compromise. If I were to be a dictator I would ban all homework questions and be done with it. I have yet to see the pro-PSQ party formulate another compromise.
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@JyrkiLahtonen Now that's what I call an "extreme' view. Take note quid.
 
Jyrki Lahtonen
Jyrki Lahtonen
@BillDubuque Let's here it then. Formulate a compromise, and post it in meta for discussion.
You are the only one here who refuses to abide by any compromise @BillDubuque
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@JyrkiLahtonen That counts as the most preposterous claims I've read in a long time. Do you have amnesia? DId you forget all the meta arguments over the past decade?
 
Jyrki Lahtonen
Jyrki Lahtonen
And, once again. We are not interested in your debate club antics. If, in your opinion, calling self-aggrandizing as such is ad hominem. So be it.
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@JyrkiLahtonen So you have forgotten them? How convenient....
 
Jyrki Lahtonen
Jyrki Lahtonen
8:17 PM
@Bill You lost your diamond because you followed your private "Bill's way or highway policy".
5
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@JyrkiLahtonen Yet more unfounded guesses.... anyway I've had enough Jyrki attacks for one day. Goodbye
 
Jyrki Lahtonen
Jyrki Lahtonen
Just formulate a suggestion for a policy.
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
As I've stresseed in the past - this room is incredibly hostile to anyone who thinks differently. This is not the place to attempt to seek compromises.
 
Jyrki Lahtonen
Jyrki Lahtonen
Agree @Bill. Meta is the place for that. Why are you not posting there?
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@JyrkiLahtonen If you paid attention above yoo would know that TheSempleFire dragged me here from meta. Tsk tsk.
 
 
2 hours later…
quid
quid
10:23 PM
@BillDubuque it's policy on some other SE sites. But yes it's not policy here. As I read @JyrkiLahtonen comment he explicitly acknowledges this and therefore tries to show some restraint.
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@quid But nobody said a thing about any other site above. Nor should they since it is completely irrelevant to this site.
 
quid
quid
10:49 PM
@BillDubuque the point is that the view is arguably not that extreme as after all as far as I know it is policy on physics.se, a site founded on the same principles as this site.
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@quid As I've emphasized for decades, general mathematics sites are extremely unique beasts, so I don't find comparisons to other SE sites to be helpful - whether they be sites for physics or cooking. Even one of the founders of SE (Jeff Atwood) expressed extreme surprise when he realized how different this site is compared to other SE sites.
 

« first day (2663 days earlier)      last day (1817 days later) »