@amWhy Ya definitely that was a wonderful answer. However I found some flaws in it which I have mentioned in comments. Answering those comment might make question more helpful
@Peter Austria were brilliant to a man. They showed willpower and also ability. But actually, I don't realize why they are so underrated! Each of the members of their backline are going to be playing in the Europa League or higher next season. Sabitzer is wanted by top clubs. Arnautovic would have reached the top of the game if he had a little more dedication. But yes, Italy are a different monster, so having handled them for 90 minutes is amazing!
@amWhy I give up , regarding this post. If it's been reopened once with at least one CURED semi-regular being part of the process, then I'm going to think it's ok for it to be kept open. I'm not feeling extremely terrible because I realize that the other question is well written , in fact very well written. This user also has a history of decent questions, so I was surprised more than angry at my rejection.
(By other question, I mean the linked question)
@amWhy I am unhappy about what happened in that post, but I really cannot invest more time and effort into closing that post, especially when I see that there's enough reason for it to be kept open on that basis.
I am also extremely, extremely sorry if you invested time on this post because of me. It is not your fault, it is my fault that we chose to invest time in what turned out to be a post thought of as borderline.
We still do come out with important points from the discussion, such as the interpretation of Willie's comment being a deterrent to improvement of PSQs, but I would like to consider the discussion on this question closed.
Sure, let me know how it goes @JitendraSingh frankly, at this point of time I'm just irritated by the fact that amWhy had to go through such abuse. Furthermore, the problem for me is that the OP there is not going to listen and is going to continuously stick to the fact that Willie Wong said that "mathematically clear" questions don't need to follow the rules. If we can do something about this rule we can go back to that question and perhaps decide the best way.
But at this point of time, I want to get rid of the comments that abuse amWhy, because they don't know where she is coming from, and they don't know why the rulebook is implemented.
So they are short of context, just like their question should have apparently been.
Another reason I'm not concerned is that this user has been informed before regarding low quality questions (it's been more than 2 months, but I remember people in fields similar to mine). At that point of time, their response was to immediately edit the post and improve it. So I think they did better than what I would expect of most others.
In the question comment I feel something fishy however. Why are some of the user so much favouring the OP as if he/she was their best friend? Why are they not taking context matter seriously against this specific question? @TeresaLisbon @amWhy
@JitendraSingh It's probably because they don't use context in the same way as us. For some users like us, context is about making the question clearer and understandable to a larger audience : so it's a move in a positive direction, so to speak. Now, for another group of users, context is anything that can prevent the question from being dishonestly put up for the community to answer. Furthermore, there is a line of thought that context purely in the name of it, ruins the question and distracts...
...from the focal point. This question is a coming together of the two thoughts, and it's clear from closure and then reopening that the scale is balanced. Having said that , either side has a strong argument.
@Saad There has been a lot of controversy over that question.
@JitendraSingh For a lot of people, they aren't even looking for "context". It comes down to "why do we close questions"? You see, some people think that only high quality questions should remain (with the meaning of "high quality" being another point of debate). For others, it's enough that the question be a "honest" attempt to ask a well-stated question. So being on CURED or interacting with one group will give you the impression that this is the only way we must decide upon questions...
... but that is simply not true, going by the absolute spectrum of reasons for closure, including "no question should be closed" to "close only duplicates" to "close anything which doesn't follow the guidelines" to "close anything which doesn't have an attempt, even if it has the others".
All that put together means that while we think that this question is closable, apparently others do not. I invested some time into pushing closure, but I was unable to argue against the point OP put out @Saad I discussed a comment of Willie Wong in a long thread above. That comment was used by OP to defend themselves in that question you attached. You can take a look at the comment and see if it applies or not.
@Saad Thanks. Let's see how it goes. See, my problem wasn't that I didn't want the question closed. But that particular comment from Willie Wong basically removed the need for ANYTHING above it to be of use. The entire guidelines could be ignored if we were ready to write "mathematically clear questions". This is funny, because writing : why is $2+2 = 4?$" is also mathematically clear. The problem then, is in what "mathematically clear" means. If "2+2= 4?" isn't mathematically clear for...
There is a vast difference between disagreement with a opinion and disrespect. User qp212223 has been a member of 4 years and yet earned just a 1000 rep. On the other hand @TeresaLibson you have earned 62 k reputation at an approx and @amWhy has earned 200k rep. Both of you have been a longer time in site than qp212223 still disrespecting both of your opinion he just says what he wish to. He has clearly
disrespected @amWhy by his very abusive comments although he is very less experienced than you.
... a reason that someone might want to point out, then the same reason can be applied to that question. This reason is simple : clarity is not merely in mathematically "stating" the question, but the background of where the question is coming from is important (for example, is this being asked from a Peano's axioms points of view? From a set-theoretic point of view, where numbers are defined as sets? and so on) and without these , the question isn't "mathematically clear" and the guidelines...
@JitendraSingh: irrespective of the time and reputation on this site one is expected to behave in a civil manner in all the interaction. Also the real reputation and the respect of a user is not really related to the reputation points.
@JitendraSingh The disrespectful comments must be lifted , but more importantly the user claims they are open to feedback. I can't give them feedback because they are already apparently biased against me. If Saad's ping works out and a mod feels free to take action, perhaps then the user can understand.
I only wish I had seen all this before I apologized and retracted my claim.
See, the entire abuse episode should have been avoided, and a better argument for closure should have been given. Whatever it is, I now leave it to some mod to decide the direction of things.
@JitendraSingh Thanks you so much! Actually I don't want this user to now receive any feedback from us, even if it's mine. I think they've had enough, and we've had enough. All we need to do now is get a moderator into play and see what they think. What we do say now is : lesson learnt. That comment must either be expunged or not be taken out of context. We know how to defend it now.
But at this point, let me see if I can wrap things up with that user.
Here is the problem which I mentioned in this question. Plese see the above C-2 It was posted yesterday but it didn't got closed uptil now. That is the problem. Some questions are skipped and then the OPs bounty the question to postpone the closing period @TeresaLisbon @amWhy That is why I didn't agree with @quid answer
So I completely checked the list of bounties 15 out of 59 question came to be bountied PSQs. This account for approximately $25%$. I would want to share some 2 results with you @TeresaLisbon @TheSimpliFire @amWhy @XanderHenderson @jasmine and others
2
The first result was that all the bountied question except B15 are of $50$ reputation
The second one was that in every question there were some very complex maths use. Take for example B15. By having a quick sight at it one would feel that this is a brilliant question because of the complex maths. However the reality turns out to be after reading is that it is just a textbook question and no attempts have been made by OP
@JitendraSingh It is hard to repair the damage caused by an absurd rule. Apparently the flexbility of this site is not sufficient that , whoever has the power to change this , just stops the possibility to shield a question from closure with a bounty. Admitting errors and correcting them is not a sign of weakness, in contrary !
But it is like always in the real life. Only things that were good change, the bad things keep forever.
I would like to hear opinions about this post where a negative base number system is mentioned. I personally dislike such concepts, shall we close this question (and if yes, for which reason) ? I have not close-voted yet.
Right now, the answer to the question is too obvious, so it has to be modified. But otherwise there's been effort. Borderline, I would say. Although one thing for sure : negative bases don't have any useful thing going for them apart from some programming simplifications.
I also believe under certain conditions, that if $b$ is a palindrome in base a then it's a palindrome in base -a (under certain non-trivial but easy-to-satisfy conditions on $a$ and $b$).
@JitendraSingh @XanderHenderson Thank you for your actions. I will need to do better conviction and bullying wise. In particular, I just crumble when I can't get an argument going my way. Need to either work on this or read up more.
As much as we "won" on that post, the true win for me would be a loophole that stops people , anybody, from taking that statement out of context. We ask for everything in the "good question" page to be taken with this context, but the comments underneath it aren't healthy if they promote the development of stock-standard PSQs.
Yes, the conditions for retaining palindromicity are simple : there should be zeros at the odd places. I think this retains the palindromicity, but we can build from there as well.
@TeresaLisbon it is not mine or Xander win it is a win in which we four contributed. If you didn't wrote the message in morning then maybe I would not have observed it and it might not have been closed
@TeresaLisbon ya I agree with your definition of 'won'. The real victory of the site will be when all the PSQ ends. I think that is too much to expect. Simply if users >1 reputation don't post PSQ that I will consider the biggest win but it is just like football
The strongest team also can't win all the matches similarly even if we try our best it is unlikely we achieve this mission
@Teresa we all need to develop strong "bull-shit" meters. The claimed "loop-hole" in the post you were convinced by some to mean what it never meant, is the gaming most often practiced on this site: Trying to find excuses for doing what was never claimed: Don't let others distort your lens of reality. Some people gonna defy, and some of them make up the most absurd distortions claiming what is not said.
You've got a great heart, @TeresaLisbon, but this is not the first time you've been deceived by users with ill-intent. You are plenty strong. Some users are manipulative, trying to distort policies, in their favor. Their also often smug, and their smugness gives them up.
@TeresaLisbon Btw I just got to know that that post has been closed only by XanderHanderson so thanks a lot @XanderHenderson. You are one of the most helpful mods present with you. 2020 electors who voted you must be proud of their choice. Again a big thanks for closing
@amWhy Ya rightly said. @TeresaLisbon although it wasn't your mistake you took the weight of mistake "I will need to do better conviction and bullying wise". Also it was you who was worried about user amWhy getting bad abusive words whereas many would have never said sorry if any person got abusive words because of them.
Also in the chatroom Teresa Libson Senior Agent and CBI you have cleared doubt of so many young mind. You were the one who always asked the people to move on right path. Also your upvotes:downvote clearly shows that you try to motivate users by upvoting your post. Keep up the good work @TeresaLisbon
@Teresa ... to continue... If you ever develop misgivings in terms of participating in CURED, or otherwise, I will let no one here bully you. Everyone learns where they are most comfortable on this site, and what policies resonate with their priorities. I support you whatever you choose to do; I may not always agree, but I respect your right to be true to your values.
@JitendraSingh Absolutely, I second this, @Teresa!
@XanderHenderson With regards to the local martingale/quadratic variation question, https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4176103/, I am glad you stepped in and removed the non-productive argument in the comment chain. However, I disagree with you unilaterally closing the question.
I do have to remark, that I have been very pleased to see users, many users outside of CURED, appropriately participating in informative comments, to both askers and answerers, often wrt their embracing of the EoQS. We now know who the is, in our community.
@Peter with Paramanand's vote, the Wall of text is now blank!
Also I wanted to have a discussion regarding this Some newspaper claim that the Riemann's hypothesis has been solved. Can you guys give your opinion?
@ParamanandSingh I can understand that. My 630 flags have been helpful in removing the post however out of those 80% questions were of the subject I had not the slightest idea of. Just reading it made me felt it didn't include context and I flagged it and maximum of those flags were successful
@JitendraSingh: I think people at mathoverflow must know something about it. Hindu is a good newspaper (especially in southern part of India), but such a long standing problem needs more caution
@JitendraSingh I cannot see the article without deactivating adblocker or subscribing. Does anyone have the arXiv link? (I only want to get an impression of the paper and what approach was taken.)
@JitendraSingh If I had to bet, my bet would be that the proof is flawed. In this case however, either the publication of the headline is naughty , or it is humiliating for the community not to detect the flaw.
@JitendraSingh Below quid's answer, on the meta question you asked, I added a comment/concern. I am suggesting that in cases not covered by bounties placed on any question after any close vote was initiated, that there be a process, for users to petition mods, who can then take action, due to the reason I give.
@vitamind Hi I am the person who posted the question.
It appears that this is a 5-year old proof, and the reports claim a through review. So, I think it woukd be useful to to clear it up once, since I have also found the paper where he makes his proposal and a claimed refutation.
Otherwise, I suspect we will keep getting a lot of questions about this.
Hello! Unfortunately your question is not suited for math.se so it will likely be closed. However I think it might be interesting for future readers too, so I wouldn't recommend deletion.
@DevashsihKaushik It is sad that such publications are made at all, and the claim that the proof has been checked a year long is then probably also a hoax , but a very very bad one.
@DevashsihKaushik Thanks! It is very useful for us to have learned about this paper, because as you suspect: "I suspect we will keep getting a lot of questions about this."
Well sorry what I ask is gonna be not related to CURED. Recently I have been facing some issues which viewing the mathjax something which is hard to describe. When I try to click the screenshot the way the mathjax disturbs me doesn't come however the disturbance comes in when I video record my screen so I wanted to post a math meta post regarding that so can anyone suggest me any way of uploading a video in math meta
Or should I just upload a google drive link including the video
@Peter Yes. It does appear that the writers simply repeated their version of the story without doing due diligence :(
Its quite unfortunate really...we rarely get major discoveries from outside US/Europe, and for a major thing to turn out to be a hoax is sad
@vitamind I suppose closing it is for the best then.
@vitamind Btw, could you please explain exactly why this question or similar questions would be off-topic, because I was under the (evidently false) impression that it wouldn't be
Your question asks for a solution verification of an entire 22 page long paper, which claims to prove the Riemann Hypothesis - one of the biggest problems in mathematics. Can you see the problem? It may seem that one question is okay, but that would mean that we'd have to allow other questions of this kind. I don't want to read ten disproofs or proofs of the RH on math.se every day. However your question is not low quality so I won't vote to delete it.
To all who care about the martingale question, I disagree that it is a PSQ. PSQ means that there is only a problem statement, but qp212223 provided context, saying the result would be useful for the linked question.
Is it enough context? It is enough for me to see that the question is not a cheap attempt to get a HW answer. Whether this is up to the standard of MSE is debatable, but I think the debate should not be decided by a single mod. I've said this argument many times, but I thought it made sense to have it up here in CURED.
@Peter Didn't see the game, but must have been a great spectacle. Rare that you get 14 goals in 2 days. But now, need to be off : work abounds. I need to get back to consistent CURED work, only the evening will give me some time to do this!
@TeresaLisbon You say: " the user should not receive feedback from us, even mine" ... then turn around and say "But at this point, let me see if I can wrap things up with that user". So you go and create more problems, while ignoring all opportunity to talk with me.? Your choices speak all I need to know. No need to respond to any of my questions. I'm done.
@JitendraSingh I haven't seen any such comments of concern. Unless they were deleted, by whom? I worry that she is overconfident in convincing others, and rather vulnerable, to be conned by them. I say this because Teresa refused to speak with me. I think she excellent working with folks one on one, like in her chatroom, and chat in general.
@amWhy I had stalled on my response to the user, because I didn't know what to come up with. I left a very vague comment on their post now, after deleting previous ones. I think it is important that I respond to you right now.
