@Peter But question should be closed because it has no context right? Let me tell I am in 10th and don't have enough idea of integration so is there any context provided?
@JitendraSingh There IS context provided , but there's a problem in the following sense : understanding what negative frequencies are is a bit of an issue, because actually the notion of negative/complex frequencies etc. come in when posters have an electronic engineering background. That particular context is missing : which means that it's difficult to know what to do unless we know what a negative frequency is.
@Peter Without doubt! I had barely any clue about this, until I spoke to someone with an actual background in electronic engineering about it. The problem for them is essentially visualization : they can't "see" the frequencies : for us life is easy because we just think of points and contributions, but they are in trouble when they try to visualize, when the Laplace plots were never made for visualization!
In fact , they were made to make ODE/PDEs easier to solve, a bit like Sobolev spaces.
@Peter Ya truly said I myself have solved a question in this site where there was $log _a b$ was to simply find the value but a was negative. At first sight I was about to say that this is contradicting log definition but but when I simplified it I got a proper answer. So ya maths can be confusing
It was not completely $log _a b$ actually it was $log _a b+ log _c d$ something like that
@JitendraSingh Open for deletion : there's no point asking to improve this question etc., though I'm extremely, supremely surprised that such a long answer was given to the lord of all PSQs that this question was.
@Peter Actually "I’m trying to learn math by myself" phrase used in question made me think that it could be that the user might not have idea so that it why I asked other opinion just to be sure because I knew it should be closed but why not take advice of others?
@Peter What it needed most was a source : where the formulas came from. That wasn't provided, so of course the question needs closure until the source is provided.
In fact, for such a question, you obviously can't "attempt" (as in, form a proof of ...) or "motivate" it, the only context you can provide is the source and perhaps the last point in the PDF/book that the OP understood.
@Peter Like you are saying that yes should this be closed because context is there or this should not be closed because of some x and y reason
math.stackexchange.com/q/30732/876009 Should this be closed? Though user has tried to show his effort by Wolfaram Alpha but is that enough to be called an attempt as he hasn't shown any effort to simplify the expression? What are you views about this @Peter @TeresaLisbon and others?
@JitendraSingh Too old. We should leave these questions, they have some historical value. In fact I just protected the question : I believe it shouldn't come under excessive scrutiny.
By modern standards, I would say that the question is incredibly borderline. I would not mod-hammer it, but it is likely that it would be closed. However, the problem with the question is not that the asker has not produced an attempt (most attempts are just noise), but rather that the question is light on context.
"I plugged this into WA but didn't recognize the test used" is a good start. However, some description of what, precisely WA said would help. They also mention that they have not seen it "in class"---which class? What do they know? What tests do they know?
Apart from the fact that the question is very very old. Wolfram Alpha alone is never enough context, it is a nice complement. The author should point out where he/she got stuck.
Concerning motivation and source : I asked many number theory questions (mostly including prime numbers) that could barely be motivated , neither could I give a reasonable source. The problems were often self-made. Of course I always tried to summarize my efforts. As I must see, many users do not consider this to be enough context. We lose many interesting questions , if we always demand a motivation and a source.
@user21820 D2 and one of the D4-D6 aren't even closed, or if closed, aren't deleteable. Please keep posts to close separate from posts ready for deletion, As for the post with net one downvote, yet closed, I already cast a downvote, so it needs to wait for a time, or until it acquires, if it can acquire, more downvotes. In such a case, please suggest [dv + delete]. However, it is possible that the status of those posts changed after your time of posting these requests.
I don't get it. A post in the close you, of a copy and pasted question with one sentence written by the OP. They received a downvote on June 6 and complained in a comment. Then Another downvote, two upvotes, and today another downvote. Why do people feel the need to upvote very poor posts. It is outright lying to the OP. If they don't understand there mistakes, math.se users aren't going to be in their instructors' pockets to gift unearned points, when they fail an exam.
I am not in favor of massive downvotes on any posts; but at the same time, lets not mislead users.
@Xander It did not first get three downvotes, then two upvotes. The net score was 0 when I dv'd, because I assumed it just came in. I hadn't realized it previously had two upvotes and two downvotes.
@XanderHenderson There are times, though, e.g. meaningless letters, or offensive comments, where I have no problem with voting it straight down to hell. But that's hardly typical.
