« first day (2664 days earlier)      last day (2127 days later) » 

darij grinberg
darij grinberg
03:34
C1 as dupe before someone answers, please
wow that was fast
Jyrki Lahtonen
Jyrki Lahtonen
@BillDubuque Yes, you have been repeating that mantra. It is an opinion, not a fact. My exchanges with the current SE staff left me with the impression Whatever problems Math.SE has, StackOverflow has seen it. Ten times worse and a couple years before us.
3
 
1 hour later…
SmokeDetector
SmokeDetector
04:58
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Mostly non-latin title (86): prove ∫𝑥0∫𝑢0𝑒𝑚(𝑥−𝑡)𝑓(𝑡)𝑑𝑡𝑑𝑢=∫𝑥0(𝑥−𝑡)𝑒𝑚(𝑥−𝑡)𝑓(𝑡)𝑑𝑡 by Thiago Negraes on math.SE
 
1 hour later…
RRL
RRL
06:00
For deletion: DA, DB, DC, DD, DE, DF, DG, DH
RRL
RRL
06:14
For deletion: DI, DJ, DK, DL, DM, DN, DO, DP
 
2 hours later…
user21820
user21820
08:04
@RRL @JoséCarlosSantos @Saad: Not an answer because it falsely claims that you can "see solution by sketching"!!
YuiTo Cheng
YuiTo Cheng
08:47
@JoséCarlosSantos Please close this PSQ.
José Carlos Santos
José Carlos Santos
09:16
@user21820 Can't help you here. One of those votes for deletion is already mine.
@YuiToCheng Done.
user21820
user21820
10:08
D1, D2, D3.
D4, D5, D6.
D7, D8, D9.
D10, D11, D12.
D13, D14, D15.
C1, C2, C3.
C4, C5, C6.
C7, C8, C9.
C10, C11, C12.
C13, C14, C15.
quid
quid
10:43
@BillDubuque some things are different some things are similar to other sites. The proposition that we could not have a homework policy on this site because it's about mathematics strikes me as plainly odd. I personally do not think we should have a "no homework" policy, but it would be possible and not particularly problematic or extreme. Yes, it would cut down a lot on volume, but maybe that'd not be bad either.
4
 
2 hours later…
GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
12:41
cv-pls complex-analysis Missing context or other details Question re: complex analysis integrals‭ - japaranfango‭ 2019-04-29 12:37:01Z
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
13:28
@quid But I made no such "proposition", Rather, my claim was "I don't find comparisons to other SE sites to be helpful". One should be more careful about claiming someone said something that they did not.
@JyrkiLahtonen No one on the SE staff has any experience on this site. Nor do they have the combined wisdom of folks who have been teaching math on net for many decades. Of course there will be some similarities, but they are mostly superficial.
Jyrki Lahtonen
Jyrki Lahtonen
14:23
@BillDubuque I thought we agreed that Math.SE is better than the defunct sci.math usenet group. You know what is the only thing stopping this site from sinking to such a sorry state? The moderators enforcing community rules. Joel Spolsky compared lack of rules to Lord of the flies. And that is ex May actly what this site will become without enforced rules. May be you enjoyed debating with the anti-Cantor crankpots and such?
user21820
user21820
Another bad HNQ.
Jyrki Lahtonen
Jyrki Lahtonen
This site could be better, but the new users need to be educated about the norms, not given excuses to their juvenile expectations of instant gratification from a homework service.
5
GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
14:39
cv-pls complex-analysis Duplicate Integration with rectangular contours‭ - japaranfango‭ 2019-04-29 13:35:41Z
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
14:58
@JyrkiLahtonen I have no idea what "agreement" you refer to. In some ways this site is much worse than sci.math - having managed to alienate some of the brightest minds that teach math on the web. This could have been avoided if the site had been better managed.
 
1 hour later…
quid
quid
16:14
@BillDubuque who?
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@quid e.g. Matt Emerton
quid
quid
@BillDubuque anyone else?
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@quid Plenty, but that's good enough for a start
quid
quid
@BillDubuque cop out.
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
As far as I can see, Matthew Emerton no longer visits MO: mathoverflow.net/users/2874/emerton
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
16:17
@quid I'm not in the mood for yet another argument on these matters.
quid
quid
Matt also left MO. Hard to know if he would have stayed active under any circumstances. But he is certainly a bright mind that likely was alienate at some points. Reasons for leaving are usually multifold.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@MartinSleziak Not uncommon for one to leave multiple sites when they've had enough...
quid
quid
@BillDubuque what argument?
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
So perhaps he had enough of MO?
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@MartinSleziak Look at what Matt wrote on meta before he left. Ditto for many others (the most recent being Mariano). One can tolerate only so much nonsense, and some have shorter fuses than others.
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
16:21
Did Mariano explicitly say that he plans to leave and why? Again you chose an example of a user who no longer contributes on MO - so your examples would suggest that MO has some problems, too.
3
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@MartinSleziak But I can read fine, thank you. In any case I have no interest in arguing with folks who don't want to acknowledge reality. Goodbye.
quid
quid
@BillDubuque let's recap you pointed out the view "ban all homework" as "extreme." I replied that it is policy on physics and thus maybe not that extreme to which replied that physics is irrelevant. It's not clear if you think that physics has extreme policies or if you think that it is not extreme on physics but would be extreme on math.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@quid I have neither knowledge nor interest in any of the sites you mention. Nor do I believe that have any relevance to what was being discussed above.
quid
quid
@BillDubuque you claim to have no knowledge but you also claim to know that their issues are completely different to the ones this site faces. That's interesting.
On alienating users. Would you consider it is as fair to claim that you personally alienated some highly productive users at times?
3
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@quid Did you forget that I've been teaching math on the net decades before this platform existed? One doesn't need to relearn what one already knows well.
quid
quid
16:32
@BillDubuque not sure how teaching math on other platforms qualifies you to know that math.se is completely different to physics.se and SO.
2
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
General math sites are extremely diverse communities. They have to serve every branch of science, among other unique aspects. They have much more breadth and depth than any other such community - which poses unique challenges.
quid
quid
@BillDubuque other communities are also diverse. This "math is so special" in my opinion is pretty self-serving. In any case, in the end it seems it's always as it suits your current needs.
2
rschwieb
rschwieb
16:49
I agree with that sentiment on the whole. But in this case I don't see that anything at all has been added: it was just moved from a solution into the problem. Additionally something has been _lost_, that is, the original context which was self-contained and didn't have significant flaws.
Allowing posts to change so much makes me fearful for the integrity solutions tied to the questions. It seems like there is a good chance of unintended problems, hence my feeling that good editing should be conservative.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@quid I stand firmly with Gauss on that matter - Mathematics is the queen of sciences.
rschwieb
rschwieb
Just for posterity, I'd like to say: in the absence of an explicit reason for editing like the ones listed in the FAQ, an edit which necessitates more edits in the solutions seems like a "smell" to me.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@rschwieb Then it's a good thing you don't sniff any merged questions. I can't imagine the rants we'd have to suffer here...
rschwieb
rschwieb
@BillDubuque I would call that an explicit reason for editing, based on standards for duplication. Hence, irrelevant. The utility gained is worth the friction, in such a case.
@AlexanderGruber Glad to have had the chance to touch base with you on the matter.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
17:11
@rschwieb Yes, but it's another judgement call whether or not it's worth it. In any case, generally I do agree that one should attempt to minimize such changes. It is very rare that I make such edits, but I think it was worth it in this case.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
17:26
@MartinSleziak Mariano wrote "Now, if for whatever byzantine reason users are going to begin deleting useful content I for one simply cannot continue producing it and I cannot in good faith suggest —as I systematically do— to other people that they come and answer questions, for I actually cannot be sure that the effort put into doing that will not simply be wasted." He's been gone since then (except a couple comments).
quid
quid
@BillDubuque Sure. But I fail to see the connection.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
If that's not "explicit enough for you, then I can't imagine that anything woudl be.
@quid He stooped producing content (and presumably also stopped recommending the site) - just as he said he would. What do you "fail to see"?
quid
quid
@BillDubuque when I reply to a specific chat message then the content of my chat message is typically a reply to that one not whatever else the same user might have said in the meantime.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@quid Ah, I missed the reply link (and there was no context)
quid
quid
No problem.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
17:42
@quid I'm glad you clarified that since I would have been very puzzled were it the other way (and I've had too much of that already today)
quid
quid
Re Mariano, the point of Martin still stands, in that he became so inactive on MO that he got demodded for inactivity, pretty unusual thing to happen. Users come and go. That's life. The specific reason mentioned might or might not tell the full story. But, yes, I think it is fair to say that the site moved in a direction that Mariano likely did not appreciate. But, so, what? You cannot please everyone.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@quid MO has nothing to do with this. He explained it - clear as day yet you still insist on trying to ignore it.
Jyrki Lahtonen
Jyrki Lahtonen
17:59
@BillDubuque I'm afraid "elephants can remember and will remember many things". Like the fact that you were verbosely against answering low hanging fruits and the fastest guns in the west. But, that changed quickly when it was no longer Arturo reaping the benefits. After he left, you quickly made a u-turn and started favoring "teaching opportunities" instead of closing duplicates. I remember this quite well for I supported your stance on LHFs initially.
quid
quid
@BillDubuque I say that first what users say does not always tell the full story. But second yes I think what he said did play a role obviously. But third, so be it. You can't please everyone.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@JyrkiLahtonen Again, I have no clue what you are talking about. And again what you wrote has nothing to do with me. Where in the world do you get these strange ideas?
Jyrki Lahtonen
Jyrki Lahtonen
Of course, I have, again, "completely misinterpreted your motives". It's just you leaving several occam's razors in your wake. The picture they form ain't pretty. You are welcome to cling on to your allusions of higher motives, but... it looks like a duck and walks like a duck.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@JyrkiLahtonen Honestly I cannot make any sense of what you wrote, or even what point you are attempting to make.
Jyrki Lahtonen
Jyrki Lahtonen
Starting from here.
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
18:08
@JyrkiLahtonen Ok, so you it seems you are attempting to make some bizarre inference from an 8 year old answer. Was I supposed to figure that out without any link to that answer? I have no clue what your remark about Arturo is supposed to mean. Where do you get these extremely bizarre ideas from?
 
2 hours later…
Lord_Farin
Lord_Farin
20:07
For your consideration: Time for compromise?
 
3 hours later…
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
23:15
@Lord_Farin I think that there are many people who would like to see some compromise (as well as an acknowledgement of past compromise---the focus on PSQs being, to my understanding, an example of a place where some compromise has been made; ditto the general practice of waiting two days before moving to delete, even if a question is eligible for deletion sooner). The problem is that very few concrete ideas have been put forth.

« first day (2664 days earlier)      last day (2127 days later) »