@amWhy I guess it is due to the asker changing "precise" to "epsilon-delta", thus chucking it onto the reopen-queue despite it being still a PSQ. It's now up for deletion.
@user21820 Even Stephen Hawking finally admitted that black holes do not exist. But it was too late. The distribution of the claim that black holes exist with all their weird properties could no longer be stopped. Just because black holes were mentioned although they have nothing to do with the question.
@Peter That too, from the same poster who wrote in the comments, asking for improvement. So they know it has to be improved, but they had to answer it as well!
@user21820 On top of that, I believe it's a duplicate. But I don't know if we can judge if this idea is useless or not. For example, see here this would be a duplicate, I believe.
@TeresaLisbon We can judge based on the motivation. As I have said before, experts in any subject can 'extract' interesting and valid ideas from even nonsense ramblings by people who know absolutely nothing, but that is not because there is any inherent content in the ramblings, but rather it all comes from the experts' prior knowledge used as a lens making them see ideas even where there may be none.
@Peter Yes. It was the closest I could come : technically, I was looking for "fractional size of basis" all those years ago, and this kind of came the closest.
@Peter About this, we can now delete the answers. I still want to keep the question undeleted so that OP might see it and react, but the answers can go now.
I don't know @Peter it just seems like the mistake is so common that everybody misses it. Closure as a duplicate of something is the best way to do it, since the author's concern is addressed with a highly upvoted comment. I think it is consistent to say : "this question has put effort, +1, but it's a duplicate so we should close it" and that's what some might do. I chose not to up vote, but the closure is correct.
@Peter That question has too many parameters. See, you are allowed to choose the $p_i$ (so you can choose what prime you want) but you can also choose the $b$? I mean, something seems wrong. Either the $b$ should be fixed and of a certain type, or the $p_i$ must have some constraint. I know it could be interesting, but to me it looks like the question will require very little work once clarified.
By the way today I had a very very bad question. I won't like to reveal why. It has been a sad day however I hope the sadness doesn't continue on Math SE
@JitendraSingh I have placed the last delete vote, but I'm just wondering what was that wrong with it. But you've asked for it, so I suppose it's ok. Having said that, you need not reveal it is a bad day, but merely wait for the next day.
@NikhilKumarSingh Flag as "not an answer", and if there's a reason to preserve the answer then you can post the same link in the comments, giving credit to original author. I cannot see anything wrong with that.
@ArcticChar This went unnoticed, I'm a little surprised. It is from a slightly (but not too much) far flung tag, but not that much!
Thanks @Peter @ParamanandSingh @TeresaLisbon for deletion
@TeresaLisbon I felt that the question was just useless and the duplicate mentioned almost uses the same method and since the question was attracting downvote too so I thought of deletion
@ArcticChar I have not enough delete votes to spare on a user who rarely reciprocates with respect to considering others' requests. Focus on actions you can take, not what you expect only other users to take.
I’m not sure what’s going on here. This user has more than one post which read more like blog posts than questions.
They post a “question” and then immediately answer it for themselves. No solution-verification tag is being used. It seems like the user just wants to share a cool fact they know with the math.stackexchange community.
