« first day (3384 days earlier)      last day (526 days later) » 

4:49 AM
@ParamanandSingh Oh I didn't notice, because I don't look below the PSQ haha..
5:04 AM
@TeresaLisbon 1 more downvote to deletability.
@MartinR Down for deletion!
@user21820: I can understand, PSQs are not worth the time to analyze in detail with the list of all answers and comments.
5:57 AM
@ParamanandSingh Self-deleted.
6:09 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Potentially bad ip for hostname in body, potentially bad keyword in body, blacklisted user (73): Is it.... every number goes through digit 9? by mykar2un on math.SE
3 hours later…
8:43 AM
Is the answer of this question actually valid in the sense that the modern compass solves the "squaring the circle" problem in the same sense as an angle can be trisected ? I have doubts , but maybe I am wrong.
9:08 AM
@Peter: squaring circle amounts to constructing a transcendental number. And tools which can draw algebraic curves (ie their equation is algebraic) should not lead to an algebraic number.
But don't trust me on things related to abstract-algebra
9:19 AM
Might consider deleting this answer (it was discussed on meta).
@ParamanandSingh you mean "should not lead to a transcendental number" , right ? This is exactly what makes me sceptical.
@ArcticChar I think, deletion is justified.
@Peter : yes you got it. Sorry for that kind of typo.
9:41 AM
This thread was created after deletion of a previous question by same user.
Don't know how to deal with this.
10:10 AM
@Peter Paramamand is right. Trisecting an angle is an algebraic operation in the sense of modern algebra. A straightedge allows you to solve linear equations. Adding a compass allows you to solve quadratic equations. Adding a 2-marked straightedge allows you to solve cubic equations, which suffices for trisecting an angle.
Note that this is actually physically as realizable as a compass, namely if your ruler has a sharp end (which you take as one mark), you can stick a pin at A and put a straightedge alongside BD and then slide the marked ruler in contact with that pin dragging its end along BD until the other mark touches the circle (at C), and then you're done.
In contrast, squaring the circle requires constructing a non-algebraic number which I think is impossible via any idealized mechanical device.
@user21820: thanks for the confirmation. I know some theory about ruler and compass construction, but not that confident.
@Peter It's deleted, but I think a better close reason would have been that it is too broad (in the sense of "why is separation/clustering important in life?"), and/or was better suited to the educators site. If it was on the educators' site, I'd have surely had a crack at it, although I'm sure someone would have done better.
@ParamanandSingh By "mechanical device" I meant rigid devices, so excluding loose-hanging strings that we can use to construct transcendental curves like the catenary. But I could be wrong about that last claim. In any case π is certainly not an algebraic number, as you stated, so neither is √π.
@ParamanandSingh The previous question has been undeleted, and now I think things are good, except the user needs a warning.
10:28 AM
@Peter But concerning that specific answer, I don't know enough about Galileo's compass to judge whether that answer is misleading or not. In particular, if it comes with a logarithmic slide rule, then one could argue that it can be used to obtain certain transcendental constants just by treating it as a marked ruler (with idealized marks). If it happens to have both π and 1 marked on it, then sure we can construct √π, in which case the answerer is correct that it is just cheating.
But the question is bad and I think we all agree that it should be closed.
@TeresaLisbon: glad to hear that. But still i don't get the point of deleting one's own question. Creating two threads on same topic when the first was sufficient does not make much sense
@user21820, @Peter: that Galileo question is now closed.
@ParamanandSingh That is correct. However, there were circumstances I can imagine (such as the answerer not responding, or leaving a framework the OP wasn't able to complete, etc.) that could have led to the creation of a second thread. The user needs a warning, however.
I had already left a comment there to that effect @TeresaLisbon. So perhaps we don't need anything more there.
@ParamanandSingh ok, great, good, well , done.
oh no, left finger was on the commas there, sorry.
No issues
It does sound like go, went, gone
10:41 AM
Delete this PSQ to make this PSQ deletable.
@user21820 Second one can go now.
@TeresaLisbon Thanks! One more vote to go.
@user21820 Gone!
@vitamind Do you know why Martin Hopf has not been seen since 4 days ?
11:05 AM
How exactly does the "last seen" work? I saw a user's profile, they were last seen 26 minutes ago but posted a question 14 mins ago , which is here and can be deleted if required.
The new comment in the galileo question seems to mean that this compass uses $\pi\approx \frac{22}{7}$ , in which case, it is just a measurement with sufficient accuaracy. I do not know what this compass actually does, but considering this comment, there seems to be nothing about construction of $\pi$
@Peter Mmh, no. I hope to see him by April 26th at the latest...
11:37 AM
@Peter Wow that would be an oracular compass! And you're right, the more we hear the less it makes sense. Reminds me of...
in Jokes, May 8 '19 at 10:07, by user21820
The more cheese, the more holes. The more holes, the less cheese. Therefore, the more cheese, the less cheese.
The question is now up for deletion!
11:59 AM
A: How likely is it that a question with 2021 is from a current contest?

user21820To answer the titular question:   The likelihood that a question with 2021 is from a current contest is $1-\dfrac1{2021}$. Well, we all know that this likelihood was already quite high even before Math SE came around, and it only increases over time for questions on Math SE, since cheaters have f...

@TeresaLisbon As I understand it, “last seen” is intentionally inaccurate, e.g. in order to protect some privacy. You can find some information in this Q&A and its comments: meta.stackexchange.com/q/285220/196432.
With a precise timestamp it would be easier to associate votes with people.
Wrong answer because a bounded sequence need not converge.
12:18 PM
@MartinR I ,see, thanks.
@user21820 But the question is, why does it not blow out, right? I think that has been addressed somewhat.
@TeresaLisbon The question is addressed well by the other answer. The fact that the asker asks such a question means that the asker does not have the capability to understand what is missing from the post I linked. The point, anyway, is that that post is wrong because it claims existence of limit from just boundedness. It didn't even say anything about that.
@user21820 Ah, yes, that is certainly true. Now it remains to convince the OP of the same.
12:36 PM
@MartinR Could you please send the comment you wrote under this post? (With the hyperlinks so I (we) can easily copy-paste it? And by the way, please close this PSQ.
@vitamind You can find that (and other useful comment templates) here:
Q: List of comment templates

user2468Inspired by this question on meta.cstheory.SE. The post at meta.Tex.SE is quite impressive. We often leave generic comments to OP and answer posters such as "if this is a homework, please add a tag," and such. Can we make this post a community wiki and add a big list of standard comments? Let's ...

12:59 PM
D needs one more vote
1:20 PM
Needs a delete vote but still wondering if user needs time to improve their question.
1:37 PM
D1, D2, D3.
D4, D5, D6.
D7, D8, D9.
C1, C2, C3.
C4, C5, C6.
C7, C8, C9.
@TeresaLisbon That PSQ is now up for deletion.
2:07 PM
2:58 PM
Close - Clever or interesting or elegant or beautiful ways to write "80"
Belongs to Puzzling SE at the very least
@TheSimpliFire Do I have your permission to cc @TheSimpliFire every time you review a post and act differently than I would? I'm polite enough to ask you before doing so.
1 message moved to ­Trash
@amWhy Yes. cc was meant to ask for your thoughts on the post/why you thought it was ok, ie discussion.
3:13 PM
An invitation to all users here to discuss this post is more than appropriate; to single out one user here, is not. There are far, far too many questions that are mere PSQs to focus on, other than what could be a fun application of mathematics.
@amWhy It is an open discussion but as a handler of that review I was more interested to hear from you. (It happened that you were the only reviewer)
I concur it is a minor issue on the PSQ scale but most of us here already take similar stances on the low-end questions
There is no "handler" of the review, unless you mean "as a user who reviewed that post",,,
And on the same topic, it may be worthwhile to add these sorts of questions to the What might be better suited elsewhere section as Puzzling SE welcomes them.
@TheSimpliFire Don't consider yourself "most of us" You have no data to suggest "most of us here already take similar stances on low-end questions. Define "low-end" and conduct a peer reviewed poll/study.
@TheSimpliFire For what it is worth, I don't think that the question is a very good fit for the site, and I likely would have voted to close if not for my intsta-closing abilities. However, I find it to be a pretty marginal case, and could probably be convinced that it fits (I am not opposed to having a little bit of fun every now and then).
That being said, I think that your suggestion of relocating that question to Puzzling is a good one.
3:23 PM
@TheSimpliFire I have no problem with you wanting it migrated. But I do have a problem suggesting I am an "outlier" without any evidence to support that.
@amWhy Low-end questions are any of spam, off-topic or PS questions. I think the voting on Math Meta is a good enough poll.
I do not consider the above question as low-end.
It was rather a comment on "There are far, far too many questions that are mere PSQs to focus on" in that discussions on non-PSQs are equally valid.
The question is now on Puzzling. I think that it would be advisable to leave the stub, however, as math folk might be interested.
@XanderHenderson Thanks.
@TheSimpliFire Oh, dear Lord, let me correct myself: There are far, far too many questions that are mere PSQs, or spam, or off-topic, to focus on, other than what could be a fun application of mathematics.
@Xander, my main concern would be that you issue a word of caution to another user to not single out single users based on their seeing things differently
@amWhy I think that it is reasonable to (1) ask the question "Should this be on Puzzling?" and (2) ping the person who handled the review task. I don't think that @TheSimpliFire was trying to "call you out" or that they were accusing you of anything.
3:34 PM
@XanderHenderson If he'd pinged me directly, that would have been fine. Instead, he was a tad passive when pinging me in a cc, rather than address me directly. Whatever, @Xander But sometimes you need to know when to sit back for a while, on CURED.
I'll say it again, @Xander, tailored to you: There are far, far too many questions that are mere PSQs, or spam, or off-topic, to focus on, other than what could be a fun application of mathematics. Especially so for mods all of whom spend far less time on this site than most users from CURED, and many other users, and therefor need to prioritize their time most significantly.
@amWhy Fine. You thought that the question was adequate for the site, and not nearly as urgent as other questions. That is perfectly fair. I don't understand why you are being so defensive about it---I think that is all that @TheSimpliFire wanted, i.e. to understand a decision which you had made.
@XanderHenderson And I already told you, I had no clue why they cc'd me, passively requiring I ask why, and then explain themselves, hiding behind "most of us here"... He should have pinged me directly, and asked me what my thoughts are/were. I am not being defensive, I am being direct, unlike The Simple was with me.
@XanderHenderson As I said, "if all that The Simplifire wanted, i.e., to understand a decision which I had made", why didn't he ask that of me, directly?? I was getting irritated with the passive aggressive behavior. All the ensuing comments after merely cc'ing me, mostly comprised the majority of this thread. You would have been better served if you had the time to read the entire thread. I don't care that the outcome was moved to another site, but that option did not appear in the review queue.
You are shaming me, @Xander, after the fact of a mod's intervention, for me not selecting the option to migrate specifically to puzzling.se, merely because that was not an option in the review queue.
I'll say no more, @Xander, about this. Because I know you never apologize for any comment, action, etc., ever which is not what I'm seeking from you, but knowing that says a lot about you, and knowing that you dig your feet in even more to obliterate any one who challenges you on the teeniest of matters.
4:10 PM
@amWhy True. It is better that we rid the site of the undebatable questions, than to bring in the debatable ones. Bringing in the debatable ones is possible and in fact encouraged, but only if we can rid ourselves of all the undebatable ones, the ones that should not be answered by a significant stretch.
Side note : does anybody here search for PSQs or bad questions from the "unanswered queue" where questions first come in? It seems a good idea obviously, but somehow it struck me today.
@TeresaLisbon Good point!
I rarely visit "unanswered questions"... But until you mentioned it a sourced for "weeding out PSQ's", I hadn't considered that. Thanks for the suggestion!
@user21820: your C12 is part of an ongoing delete undelete cycle (the "irrationality of $\pi+e$" question which became famous due a meta thread) and unfortunately my close vote hasn't aged so far to be used again.
@ParamanandSingh ^^^ I'm in the same situation: cannot downvote again, cannot cast a close vote again, yet, @user21820
4:41 PM
Welcome, @Learner!
thank you @amWhy :)
@Learner :D
@user21820 Thanks for the reference to using Gimpy for your masterful editing of images!
@TeresaLisbon I forgot you haven't seen these before, which are two sources you can go to if you have too many votes and time to spare:
@amWhy You're welcome! It's actually easy for objects with sharp edges, but I guess we're in the wrong room for Gimp!
@user21820 Yes, thanks for that, I'd never seen this before as well! My idea with that particular queue was to stop PSQs at source, I did this with one question today : within 10 seconds of coming in it was on CURED, closed in just 2-3 minutes and deleted soon afterward when no improvement was forthcoming despite the comments.
I also see the algorithm : short length is the criteria. It makes sense.
@user21820 I never encounter times when I have too many votes "left over"! :(
4:48 PM
@amWhy That's you for you! =)
Whoops I just realized that my first link was to a link...
@user21820 Not entirely true; on days you or RRL doesn't post a series of posts to delete, I tend to find a handful of posts up for deletion with only one more vote needed to delete, in the "mod tools". Going there every day tends to frustrate me. But the other day, I knocked off 15 posts deleted: both questions and a few answers, too.
@amWhy Yup I do that too! On the other hand, the advantage of the CRQ link is that unlike the mod tools queue it lets you see all closed questions even those without delete-votes, and you won't have to look for "(1)". =)
@user21820 Good point!
Closed with attempt in comments, if someone gets OP to bring it to the question post we can reopen, else it requires a downvote for deletion.
@amWhy No, I am not. I am sorry that you feel as though I am shaming you, as this was not my intention. Had I seen the question, I might have voted to close it. I would not have thought to migrate it to Puzzling, and a non-moderator could not even have made that vote.
No one was attacking you, and no one was trying to shame you.
5:03 PM
@TeresaLisbon Up for deletion now. Note that the 'attempt in comments' came after an answer was already posted.
(I can't delete-vote as I ran out already.)
Seems low effort but here's my question : how do we know that this is low effort? There is an answer with four upvotes that is a simple counterexample. What is the right direction that should be taken by potential answerers and curators here? IMO the effort is a little low, and the answer could have waited if only to take this into account, but otherwise as an answer to the question alone it is appropriate.
@TheSimpliFire Puzzling does not welcome open-ended lists; where did you get that idea?
(cc @XanderHenderson ^)
5:54 PM
@XanderHenderson Then why did "someone" suspend me from chat for 30 minutes for inappropriate content, yet failed to delete what they considered "inappropriate" content. The only answer seems to be "because they could." That leaves two of you with the ability to punish me for disagreeing with you both. But you've already evaded me for at least 45 minutes now. So likely, I'll not get, ever, a satisfactory answer.
@bobble Indeed, users, and mods, here, need to consider the description on other sites, wrt "What sorts of questions belong here?" I think the move was done too quickly, so as not to have to deal with it on this site. I appreciate you commenting here, and particularly, to @TheSimpliFire, and @XanderHenderson who considered the matter in this chat for only minutes. And not listening to other's feedback.
I admit that we do have older, open-ended questions lying around. Those were declared off-topic two years ago but the promised clean-up never finished. I am planning to open the topic on a meta post soon.
@bobble I apologize, then, for the migration.
@rschwieb Excellent, closed without an answer. Now we can see if there's a good duplicate, and/or prompt user for reopening cues.
The question should hopefully be closed soon enough on Puzzling (though some high-rep users are adding answers... sigh)
6:10 PM
@bobble Oh, I see, this happens there as well! We should talk... or perhaps we have done so many,many times before, as it seems.
Anyway, proceeding to bed, good evening all!
@bobble Seems to shadow math.se's development, where questions acceptable in the past, do not meet current standards.
@bobble Again, I apologize---I had recalled seeing similar questions on Puzzling in the past, and thought that @TheSimpliFire's suggestion was a good one. I was not aware of the change in policy.
Thanks for listening. I know it's hard to keep track of other sites' scopes
(and the question, despite upvoted comments against it, has a Leave Open vote, so what do I know?)
@bobble Indeed. It is not easy to keep up with every other site's meta. :P
3 hours later…
9:06 PM
I failed this audit exam. Is this a joke?
9:41 PM
@vitamind Welcome to the illogical algorithm/bot that considers any post with at least 5 upvotes and no close votes, "good" thus anyone who thinks differently, like you did, and I would. "fails" the audit. The audit serves a purpose, but i'D say, for no more than 80-90 percent okay, depending on the queue. On the other hand, the only thing they test for in the suggested edit queue are questions that were randomly edited absurdly (again, robot)... and the only way to fail, is to accept edit
@vitamind When I encounter such low quality posts I'm supposed to approve, I will often downvote, and vote to close. That will remove it from the review queue, because one or the other, or both, will make it ineligible according to the algorithm.

« first day (3384 days earlier)      last day (526 days later) »