@user21820 In fact, $a^{b^c}$ is clearly defined as $a^{(b^c)}$ by convention. That this operation is not associative does not mean that it is not well-defined. The uptovters probably did not read the complete answer , and if , were not aware of thie convention.
The main putpose of power towers is creating huge numbers and therefore they are always calculated from above (or from the right) because this way we get the largest possible number.
@TheSimpliFire Hmm, I’m baffled by this. Perhaps a mod removed it from community wiki? I can’t prove it since I didn’t take a screenshot, but it did show up on the interesting questions queue a few hours ago despite not being edited or receiving a new answer, and I could’ve sworn the reason was community wiki. It was considered “active” as of today as well.
D4 is particular annoying. Asked countless many times and with poor content. Does "$\frac{0}{0}$" vanish any time in the future ? And reopen-voted twice.
@Saad As long as the user has the last word, it is OK as an assistant.
Now we see the damage of the declined flag on this question. Look at the last comment to the answer ( a reply to the information that the question should not have been answered ). Does it make sense to flag it or is this flag declined anyway ?
@Peter The comment is strange to me for two reasons: (1) no one was trying to censor anyone; it was a mere suggestion; and (2) if you allow answers like these because users are “entitled” to do so, then you must allow allow comments like these as that user is also “entitled” to by the same metric.
Still, I don’t really know if it’s worthy of a flag.
@shoteyes Don't you see how bad this post is concerning future users that disagree with the rule that questions like this should not be answered ? It would be very important to establish a clear sign that this is not wanted here.
@Peter I totally agree with you, but I think I used the wrong words. I believe that comment (the one about censoring, not the one about the quality standards) is totally inappropriate, and comments like that should absolutely be discouraged. I guess what I meant to say was that I don’t know if there’s a right criterion under which to flag it or whether such a flag would be accepted.
@shoteyes Exactly this is the problem. And anyway , there currently seems to be a serious lack of active moderators which will lead to many pending flags.
@Saad I witnessed a conversation that seems to lead in such a direction. Xander itself unfortunately hates to remove bounties (because the points are "lost") but if bounties have such consequences, a removal is the only proper way to handle the situation , if they should not have been offered.
Nothing worse can happen as that users over and over again shield questions with bounties. Then, the site will drift away completely.
@user21820 I really hate to be defending that answer (and that user), but I think that the entire post above that last comment explains pretty well what the answerer means. The comment that $a^{b^c}$ is undefined follows several paragraphs of explanation.
At the end of the day, the problem, I think, is that the poster has difficulty writing, particularly in English.
In any event, the question is not worth keeping, and the answer isn't great---I just don't see that last line as being terribly problematic.
@Saad Everyone seems to be on-board. Honestly, others have been carrying the majority of the load since the end of June.
@Saad Indeed, it is the worst case scenario, because he easily skips days, even a week. I think there other supporters; it is not all dependent on Xander (thank goodness).
@XanderHenderson Which is why the EoQS has not been enforces in the last month. Dah?
@Saad, What it does reveal is how shallow the mod team is. A successful team needs depth, this is as true in sports as it is wrt the moderator team. This site has a shallow depth. If not for two moderators, out of ten, this site would become a lawless territory. Those two moderators that put more work into this site, want to protect the other mods, to whom they've ple
@amWhy No, I don't think so. Others have been pretty active with respect to the procedure. The problem is that there are a lot of EoQS flags, and it takes time to investigate them.
@XanderHenderson That's precisely what you asked us to do: flag rather than confront. So don't take it out on those of us who took that recommendation seriously. Three of you can't handle it alone. Yet when we inquire on progress, ye get all defensive.
As I have asked from the beginning, please be patient. This is a major change. I am confident that we will eventually reach a new equilibrium, but you can't expect something like this to happen overnight.
@XanderHenderson You fail to summarize the progress being made, you fail to reveal how far you are backlogged, you refuse to acknowledge dead weight mods, you merely tell us to be patient, so so all can mostly play this summer. The back log was foreseeable by any mod with a pulse on this site. Yet the only defense from mods is regularly, from the beginning of this site: Be Patient!. I think it's time for mods to seriously consider that this site needs more active mods.
@XanderHenderson: I am keeping my patience, but those who are flagging quite often need some sort of feedback. Some sort of statistics of the actions taken may be shared.
@ParamanandSingh Hey there! I agree it's time for an election. And it's time for site mods to answer to CMs why the current 10 mods on this site fail to meet the needs of this site. They protect the dead weight mods, which need to go; and that protection *has nothing to do with the pledge they formerly must sign.
@amWhy: that remark was made in a lighter mood. I really don't know if there is too much workload. But if there is, it is better that mods increase team size or increase the participation of existing mods.
@ParamanandSingh " increase the participation of existing mods." We've been suggesting the latter for months, err, not you until today. And my comments were made in an entirely light mood, too. So please live up to your own scolding of me, that you, also, ought not even request.
@amWhy (1) I am not defending "dead weight mods". Rather, I feel like you are attacking the moderation team without having all of the data required to come to the conclusions you come to. This is partly our fault---moderation on the SE network is secretive. Personally, I wish it were otherwise, but this is the culture that our corporate overlords have (seemingly intentionally) created. We are constantly admonished not to discuss moderation publicly.
@amWhy (2) Yes, the backlog was foreseeable. We knew it was coming. These things take time. Please be patient while we work through it.
@XanderHenderson This is what you get for your lack of transparency and secrecy. It is normal for a user to question the mod team. Please do not use Hyperbole to describe my comments. That has been only your method of trying to discredit me and ignore me, and shut me down.
The new enforcement procedure is a major change in the way the site operates, and the site is huge. The Titanic does not turn on a dime. For every angry message you direct towards to moderation team here in chat, there are three angry messages from users who have been contacted privately by the moderators. It is going to take time for everyone to come to terms with the change.
@XanderHenderson Please be patient with our impatience, given the lack of updates and lack of notification from mods. You knew you must be patient, so start practicing what you preach.
@XanderHenderson Please when you respond to me, to not patronize me, discredit me more than you already have, or tell me what I know already. That's your favorite diversionary techniques. "Blame the messenger!""
@XanderHenderson I fully understand this. But when the most active mods don't show up for days on end, we do have the right to feel concerned. Don't make overgeneral claims" this will take a long time, while there clearly has been a lack of mod presence of late. You are all self-fulfilling the prophecy that it will take time.
I have stated many times, that the most active current mods deserve breaks; but none of you prompt the dead weight mods to "put up" or leave. That has nothing to do with me, it has to do with the disorganization and lack of communication among all mods.
Should this be deleted? This does answer OP question and is good enough for OP that he accept it but the full answer is image only answer so should this be deleted or edited?
@XanderHenderson Well to me it's problematic for two very good reasons: (1) The original question (if you look at the history) had the ASCII text "a^a^a", which was later edited, obscuring the real source of the confusion; (2) The problem with the answer was that it claims falsely that $a^{b^c}$ is ambiguous, which is simply false because the very syntax of the LaTeX notation reflects the well-defined exponentiation and even forces the order of evaluation regardless of convention.
I have no trouble with the answer if that last line is removed or edited to match the original bad syntax, namely "a^b^c". (By the way, my bold text above is not meant to mean anything except emphasis.)
@JitendraSingh Are you sure? At every question you can click "flag" which lets you flag for closure (even if you do not have the rep to access the "close" button).
@Saad I close-voted, and explained, but I should say it's borderline because the asker wasn't asking for a solution but rather for correction of understanding of phrasing.
@JitendraSingh Ahh. That's unfortunate. It was marked as helpful but presumably the review queue didn't work. =(
Question : Isn't mentioning the source a big context? For example, let's consider the ISI admission questions. Isn't mentioning the source a big form of context, in the sense that visiting the ISI website and getting the syllabus out is a big help, so that questions are attempted within the framework of that syllabus, providing a potential indication of the user's abilities? I mean, I hope that people are taking this into consideration.
Because if we roughly operate with the idea that source + (one of attempt / background motivation(could merge with source) /similar questions solved) should be good enough, IMO this would qualify a lot of those questions as long as these are not duplicate.
Personally, I would rather keep a question reading "Rudin, exercise 1.47 states [blah]. How do I complete this exercise?" than a question reading "[Statement of Rudin ex 1.47 without attribution]. I tried [yada yada yada]."
Neither is a great question, but the sourced question is, in my opinion, better.
@XanderHenderson Personally, I lean the other way. The close-banner actually says: "ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community".
To me, a source doesn't move the needle very much away from "poor question" if it is a textbook exercise that shows no effort from the asker. And sometimes exercises come from lecture notes, not books.
@user21820 In principle, I think I agree with you. However, in practice, most "attempts" serve to enable the "BUT THIS ISN'T A DUPLICATE!" crowd, while adding very little to a question.
I'm basically talking about this because I've seen at least a handful of posts stating that we should replace a "show your work" movement with a "show your source" one, which has been my call for some time, given that a source is less debatable, more inviting and finally more applicable source of context.
(Note : more inviting is in my opinion, since I love to look for stuff I haven't seen before!)
@XanderHenderson Lol, I don't see a problem with a good question (in my sense) being also marked as a duplicate, but not deleted (because it is a good question for my standards). And yes, I know that people may interpret "duplicate" differently, but just stating my way of thinking.
@user21820 Again, in principle, I don't disagree with you. However, what usually happens is that we end up with another version of the same old question, with several duplicate answers which don't add much to the repository, and, in fact, dilutes it. :\
All those meta posts received a decent amount of attention but no push,so to speak. I think that's because the attempt is the only kind of context, that usually qualifies questions to be on site irrespective of the presence of other kinds of context.
At least that's how the operation usually seems to be, although some may argue for context apart from an attempt.
If what you have done is shown, then apparently that's enough, over say where you study from or what reason you have for solving $x,y,z$. Informed attempts could also be great e.g. if you are to find the limit of a sequence, proving that it has a limit would be subjectively(based on the question) a big step forward.
@user21820 The comment is not a request directed specifically to you, I just wanna link back to your original comment for the same post (And from the comment below mine, I thought you voted to delete)
Side note : My flag to a comment to a now deleted question was declined ! "Please do not downvote" is apparently no reason for moderators to take actions. Great !
