@user21820: regarding the bad answer you have linked I have commented that this answer should either provide a more elaborate justification or this should be converted into a comment to question. If nothing happens for sometime we can start delete process. Also this is not really expected from 300k+ rep user

@ParamanandSingh Well, it's not justifiable, because (as you know) it's just wrong; there is certainly a sequence which converges so slowly that the proposed acceleration does not make the resulting sequence converge asymptotically as fast as squared reciprocal.

@amWhy Both closed.

@user21820 Very unusual that Hagen von Eitzen posts such an answer. Usually, the posts of this user are precise , elegant and enlightning.

C/D

What do you think about Dave's comment ? Is $\pi=4$ actually reasonable in any sense ?

@Peter Um Dave's comment is not there anymore. When referring to comments in chat, I suggest quoting them by pasting the comment link itself directly, so that it is copied. Otherwise if the comment is removed then the link will be broken. By the way, GEdgar is correct; the Pi bill did get suggested and had the chance of getting passed (i.e. was not thrown out immediately) but did not in the end.

@Peter Well.. I've seen that user post some wrong answers previously but refuse to correct them, hence I stopped commenting on errors as it is pointless.

Anyway thanks for dealing with it!

@Peter: Hang on, I still see another comment from Dave (that you did not link to), which I disagree with. It is like saying we can have "π = 4" simply because "π" is a variable........ Yea sure..... we can have e = 3 too, when it is a variable and not defined yet...

@user21820 Thank you, I just wanted to know whether I have missed something. Apparently not.

@Peter I have posted a response to that comment by Dave. See if you like it. =P

Good reply !

Concerning the story : Even if the law finally did not come into effect , this nonsense is still worth to be mentioned.

@Peter Indeed, but perhaps you should amend your post to be historically accurate. The point is that such a bogus 'law' should have been thrown out by the clerk in minutes, but hey look at the quality of education we have in modern society. Lol.

→ 2 messages moved to Math Meta Chat

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12.

C1, C2, C3.

C4, C5, C6.

C7, C8, C9.

C10, C11, C12.

Utter nonsense. (See especially the claim in the author's comment claiming that "reality is full of thing that are simultaneously true and false".)

I think, you mean Dac0's answer. $4$ upvotes, unbelievable !

@TheSimpliFire Hi

@user21820 Unfortunately, a fifth upvote appeared , the question is no more open for deletion.

@Peter There are clearly trolls lurking here. (This phenomenon is not new; it has happened many times before.)

@XanderHenderson @RRL @JoséCarlosSantos @amWhy @AlexanderGruber: If you agree that that answer is nonsense, please help to downvote it, thanks!

@amWhy Because the SE overlords have made it very clear that the goal is to increase the size of the user base, and so we all have to be extra nice to newbies.

@XanderHenderson So the goal is NOT to create a high-quality site , but to collect as many users as possible no matter what they do. Great !

@Peter Preaching to the choir, @Peter. Preaching to the choir.

@user21820 Sure I agree. I have already voted to delete it.

@user21820 Did you delete-vote ?

@Peter @JoséCarlosSantos: Thanks people!

@XanderHenderson You mean you continuously sing "users, come again, go away another day"?

PSQ to close.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in username (89): Continuum mechanics- Deformation of circle by acaiberry on math.SE

@SmokeDetector What is wrong with the username "acaiberry"?!

@XanderHenderson I see you voted to close my last link. Thanks. Did you also delete my clever first comment, consistent with the question? ;D

@amWhy I did. I don't think that the asker got the point, hence the comment didn't really have the desired effect. :\

@XanderHenderson But it was clever, no? ;D But you're right about the asker. It just amazes me when I reply in a comment, doing precisely what an asker (or answerer) does, they seem oblivious to "getting it". Like: "It is urgent that you solve foo for me", and I respond "It is urgent that you improve your question (or it is urgent that you read xyz, and then edit your post accordingly...). Other users usually get it, but not the asker (or answerer).

I thought it was clever, but, ultimately, not tremendously helpful in an thread which ended up rather overheated.

@XanderHenderson Indeed. But in some ways, that thread, like many, reveal that some askers seem only to want an answer, not hints, not suggestions for improvement... akin to "if you aren't going to answer the question for me, go away and let someone else answer it!.

And for me, it allows me a little "comic relief" when encountering annoying behavior.

@XanderHenderson Indeed :/

I'm sure it won't be long until I see an "urgent" post: "My dog ate my homework, which I completed four days ago, so I have to redo it to hand in in 12 hours, but I forgot how I did it. Three questions: Fee? Fie? Foe? PLEASE HELP ME!!"

Hint: Beef flavoured laxatives.

@XanderHenderson Hah! ;D

@XanderHenderson "Acai berry" is an extremely popular scam.

Ah. I thought it was a fruit.

Eaten by hipsters.

It is a fruit, but not with all the incredible claims by the scammers. So lots of people buy that berry due to being duped; it is not a 'miracle fruit'.

(But I don't know why that term got included in the SD filters.)

Very poor question, PSQ, with two answers in five minutes (no surpise wrt who answered).

^^^Thanks, @Xander. Frustrating right now, as I'm out of close votes for the next three hours.

@Xander Note this preceding question asked by the same asker as my last link, and answered by the same answerer as my last link, and note how similar the two are: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3989152/….

→ 1 message moved to ­Trash

Delete.