[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Repeating characters in answer (81): Is the absolute value of zero positive or negative? by i am hihi on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, blacklisted website in answer, potentially bad ip for hostname in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer, potentially problematic ns configuration in answer (182): Probability of 50% success chance after 10 trials? by use on math.SE

@user64742 This seems to be related to your suggested edit: math.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/1304995

Since you have already read the post in detail - when you decided to edit - you might be in a good position to judge whether the correction is needed. (My impression is that it is.)

This answer is either wrong or extremely misleading, because it does not at all explain why it inserted the exponential factor and then 'took roots'. @JoséCarlosSantos @XanderHenderson @RRL @user1729

@user21820 Possibly you should comment on the answer saying this, rather than silently deleting it?

@user1729 I do comment whenever I feel there is benefit in doing so. In this case, I feel it is best just deleted.

Extremely useless answer that somehow got 2 upvotes. @JoséCarlosSantos @XanderHenderson @RRL @TheSimpliFire

@user21820 This time, I don't agree. For me, it is just an uninteresting answer.

@MartinSleziak “since you have already read the post in detail”. No. The line was long to the point of covering the sidebar links. I shortened it. I don’t even think I read the actual answer...

@user21820 no. It answers the question. It does so successfully. What would make an answer “useful” for that question anyhow? The question has no tangible usage to begin with!

I'm not sure why you don't agree. It's circular. The answer implicitly uses the unjustified fact that for reals x ≥ y and natural n>0 we have x^(1/n) ≥ y^(1/n). This fact requires even more work to prove than the original question! See, the original question can be generalized to the fact that for reals x < y and natural n>0 we have x^n < y^n.

@user64742 It gives absolutely no mathematical answer to the question, as the logical circularity should have been clear from the beginning.

@JoséCarlosSantos: Forgot to ping you.

@user21820 Now I agree.

@JoséCarlosSantos Thanks. Now needs just one more delete-vote. @XanderHenderson

@user21820 I don't have the XP to cast delete votes, yet.

I've already flagged it as "very low quality".

Though I have had mixed success with such flags in the past.

For example, I flagged this answer as "not an answer" (since it is a link-only answer), and had it declined.

Note that the tags to the question were edited after I flagged the answer. :\

Delete: DA, DB, DC, DD, DE, DF, DG, DH

Delete: DI, DJ, DK, DL, DM, DN, DO, DP