@XanderHenderson: thanks for those links about delete / undelete.

close please: I found this via the late answer queue. The question is missing the definitions one would need to solve it - there were links in the comments at one point, but they're dead from link rot. As of now it's not really useful to anyone.

@KReiser Done.

The same question asked by different users: C1 C2

@supinf Did you flag the questions ? The second has been answered twice, the first can (and should be) deleted.

@Peter no, I did not flag them. Should I flag both for mod attention?

I think, this is a good idea. It is at least suspicious.

@Peter Ok I flagged. Maybe its an exam. Or just the same user asking the same PSQ until someone answers.

@supinf OK. I posted a challenge in "Cafe and Tavern on the math.se", maybe you want to join into it.

Double posted by the same user. Se my comment for the dupe she replicated, which has an upvoted answer.

@amWhy: it's closed now.

@supinf: that question about rotation of line is pure formula based. Even such direct questions are being asked here as PSQ. What has happened to students?

close this PSQ

@ParamanandSingh Thanks!

@XanderHenderson That's... terrible. It just gives us less incentive to use the low-quality flag, knowing that the author can just undelete on a whim and we wouldn't even know about it.

@supinf C2 closed now.

@ParamanandSingh Up for deletion now.

@ParamanandSingh @Peter @amWhy @XanderHenderson @AlexanderGruber: I personally think that this kind of post does not deserve to stay on Math SE, despite being technically not flouting any guidelines, because this site should not be a popularizer for crankery. What do you all think?

@user21820 On the one hand, I agree with you, and voted to delete. But on the other hand, it does exemplify, in the answers, the sorts of things readers should consider/questions they should ask, when assessing the quality and merit of a source. Part of education should be equipping students with tools to critically evaluate sources of information.

@amWhy Yea.

Though I suppose we already had an FAQ for that. =)

@user21820 Good point. And I'm quite sure we do not want to open the floodgates on all such questions about papers, asking for mathematicians to evaluate for them.

@amWhy Exactly! Amusingly, I think there are more such bogus papers than papers from professional mathematicians on the Collatz conjecture!

@user21820 heh

PSQ please do the proof for me.

@user21820 idk. does refuting crankery popularize it?

on one hand, removing it would "deplatform" the author; on the other hand, if it's still up other places on the internet, the question is a resource for people who want to know what's wrong with it.

I guess I'm neutral on the subject.

I would prefer not deleting it. I think refuting crankery has some value.

del-pls real-analysis (No Roomba) I don't think that this is terribly useful, but I am not comfortable permanently deleting it. Towards a new proof of infinitude of primes ( with possible unified application to other primes of special forms whose Infinitude is unknown):‭ - Bambi‭ 2020-03-05 18:24:35Z

Please delete.

Please close/delete, if you have any close votes left.