@XanderHenderson I would feel empowered to do so if moderators do not delete comments. The reason is that sometimes people claim that the edits come from comments that have been removed after they are no longer relevant. Since it is impossible for normal users to be sure of what had happened, it is best if moderators step in.

And I think that moderators should simply close the question if the context was faked, because it got reopened due to falsehood.

Unrelated to the above, I don't understand why this double PSQ was not only undeleted but also reopened. @XanderHenderson

Oh this is open again

A new PSQ

Another PSQ

@XanderHenderson: I just realized that it would be easier if nobody is supposed to edit in extra context except the asker, even if the asker wrote some comments that can be considered context. Then we do not have to guess or rely on moderators to know whether or not context is faked. What do you think?

@user21820 What if the asker does not add their comments to supplement their question post despite their comments being sufficiently contextual?

D

how could this get 9 upvotes ?

It seems a bit strange to me that this question about the recently publicised so-called proof of the Riemann hypothesis math.stackexchange.com/q/4185354/207316 was closed with the "This question is not about mathematics, within the scope defined in the help center" close reason.

I agree that it's out of scope to analyse a whole paper. But what's wrong with pointing out basic flaws in it, like the existing answer does? This is clearly a popular topic, with 12k views in 3 days, so far. If we get further questions about Eswaran's "proof", should we simply close them as dupes of that one?

@PM2Ring Popularity does not indicate usefulness. Crankery is popular.

Well, sure. And we aren't obliged to debunk every crank claim. But this one is generating a lot of interest, and it would be good to make it clear to people that this alleged proof is bogus.

I suppose the existing answer does that, but IMHO it wouldn't hurt to have another answer or two for confirmation.

@PM2Ring It doesn't need to be spammed over many sites. Many users have pointed out that this has been debunked years ago, and moreover even recently debunked again on Skeptics SE. In my opinion, even one webpage on crankery is too many, but here we have many.

@Peter While I don't think it's an answerable question, because "representation" is too vague, I can see why it was asked, because continued fractions look elegant enough that one might wonder whether there is another 'elegant' representation that makes roots of cubics 'nice'.

I don't have any idea how to ask a precise question along these lines.

Ignoring crankery won't make it go away. I'm not proposing that we need multiple pages to deal with this, one should be sufficient. And it's not like the site's been invaded by a horde of people trying to claim that Eswaran's proof is valid. People just want to know if it's right or wrong. And it seems appropriate to me that they'd come to a reputable mathematics site to find that out.

@PM2Ring I know that. But there is a fine line between honestly seeking professional opinion and publicizing nonsense, and it seems to me that it is better to simply curtail all questions about claimed poofs of open problems. You can check with @XanderHenderson that this is also the current stance of the moderation team. There is no risk in throwing out honest inquiry, because they can still ask in chat.

By the way, I agree with you if every such question was honest, but I have seen too many that are not, and that waste everyone's time. And people also keep saying "X and Y asked such and such before, why can't I?"...

@user21820 Ok.

@TheSimpliFire In my proposal, the asker should be told to edit the question to transfer their comments in, but if the asker refuses then the question remains a poor one and the comments don't make a difference. I know that some might disagree with this approach, which is why I brought it up to Xander.

Alternatively, we let it be but do not edit on behalf of the asker. Right now, if I see comments supplying context, I actually don't vote to close. I am fine with continuing that. The main problem I raised earlier was that if comments are deleted then we don't even know what really happened.

@user21820 I agree that it's much better if the OP edits in the extra info themself. I sometimes prompt them with a comment like "You need to [edit] that info into your question". But that has limited success. ;) When I do edit the question myself, I leave an edit comment like "Imported from comments by the OP".

I guess that doesn't address the issue of "fake context", though. But at least it gives future readers some idea of what's happened.

@PM2Ring Indeed; all I want to ensure is that we know whether it is fake or not (in the past I have even seen half-fake "imported from comments" where the edit is very different from the comments). So I guess we'll see what Xander says about this.

I strongly disagree with the idea that only mods should edit OP comments into the question. That's a job for the community, the mods already have enough work to keep them busy. OTOH, if we have unscrupulous answerers adding fake context just so they can post an answer to a PSQ, then that is a problem that requires some form of diamond mod action.

@PM2Ring The problem is that there are users who add fake context even to questions they did not answer, just to help other PSQ protectors, who of course typically help them back elsewhere. You can't just restrict action against answerers. The other problem is that I have not seen any strong action against such fake edits. They simply get away with it again and again and again.

Some of them stop doing it after being warned, but there are exceptions.

@user21820 To prevent this would be the job of the moderators. If they do not react properly to flags about such actions, we can unfortunately not do anything.

It's a complex situation. On the one hand, it's general Stack Exchange policy that anyone can improve a borderline question to make it on-topic & answerable. OTOH, we certainly don't want people to do that to PSQ homework dumps.

@Peter They do react properly to flags, and I don't mean to imply otherwise. However, I feel that there are insufficient consequences to prevent fake edits from continuing.

FWIW, I wrote about the homework dump problem on Physics meta, a couple of months ago. physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/13559/123208 There are some important differences though in the homework policies of the two sites.

@user21820 Proper reaction would also imply sufficient consequences like a ban for a week after , lets say , the third occurence by the same user , if the user was seriously warned.

Maybe, and increasing on subsequent offense, to 1 mth and 1 yr.

The author of this PSQ would like a complete answer...

Psq math.stackexchange.com/q/4188633/29335

C/D

The "0=1"-comment is particular annoying.

Doesn't this seem to be opinion-based?

It is. Even considering the standards at that time , the upvoters missed the point and did not notice that this is not a math question.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Repeating characters in answer (80): Hint: If $\alpha, \beta$ are complex numbers such that $|\beta| = 1$, find $mod(\frac{\beta-\alpha}{1-conjugate(\alpha)\beta})$ by William Li on math.SE

please delete this

@Peter Well, in that comment, its contents equal nothing.

C/D

@user21820 This question is no closed and marked as spam. Nevertheless an undelete-vote.

@Peter Trolls do all sorts of meaningless things.

At least, a better sort of troll would make a fake edit to improve the post before undelete-voting. This one just undelete-voted a post that says "this question was marked as spam or rude or abusive and is therefore not shown".

open for deletion

C/D

@NikhilKumarSingh It is opinion-based, and in my opinion should be closed if posted within the past few years, since we had the following meta post:

But I won't delete even opinion-based questions for book recommendation unless it is really terrible.

I agree. Deleting a post should be reserved for very low-quality questions, PSQs, spam. Instead, in my opinion, this question should be closed.

@TeresaLisbon This poor question still needs one more close-vote.

@user21820 Not anymore.

@JoséCarlosSantos Thanks!

@user21820 It was sorted out , thankfully. I called for improvement and it wasn't heeded, so perhaps we can directly move for deletion. The user only mentioned that it was from an exam : not even which exam. Wasn't tagged integrals, or even Fourier analysis. A real shame, I had some great ideas about that question.

Whatever it is , there's a better bountied integrals question , which calls for expansions on ln^2(cos x) type integrals. It's magnificent to see how these reduce, given that looking for anti-derivatives for them is like looking for a picnic spot in the sewers of Paris.

@Teresa, @JoséCarlosSantos, @JyrkiLahtonen, All are welcome to help us list words formed from the letters of To Kill a Mockingbird, in the Cafe and Tavern

Peter, I Pinged you directly from the room, plus others.

@TeresaLisbon Non-negligible likelihood that an exam cheating attempt was successful.

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12. (D12 is a PSQ double-posted after already answered on Puzzling SE.)

C1, C2, C3.

C4, C5, C6.

C7, C8, C9.

C10, C11, C12.

Need one more downvote to open this closed post for deletion. And yes some doofus answered it.

One more delete vote needed here