@user1729 Not missing anything for sure! I think I wasn't quite in my senses when I read this the last time.

@TeresaLisbon What does PSQ stands for

@Lllt Problem statement question : A question whose body contains the statement of a problem (and perhaps a sentence such as "I'm stuck" or "Help me" or "I've been trying this for hours" without mathematical content), and nothing more.

Ok :-)

@TeresaLisbon According to hardmath, the smaller factor has 59 digits. But I wonder how the routine could find this out without finding the factors. Is there an evolution in ECM I missed ?

@Peter I don't know how it found the number of digits that precisely! It's quite surprising.

11040 rels, and 836 partial from 653852

even such posts get answers. C/D

Voted to close!

I have hoped for more relations today. I would have expected about 1 million mini-rels.

Let us hope the threshold can be crossed today.

delete this variant of "guess the next number". It is not exactly this, but equally ill-posed. I wonder how the commenter found the expression , perhaps with the inverse symbolic calculator.

D

D

C/D - utterly unclear

C: another peer review type question for collatz

C/D - what is $\pi_i(n)$ ?

Duplicate? Abstract duplicate of a sum-of-squares evaluation?

@TeresaLisbon It basically asks why $1+2+3+\cdots n=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$. Clearly a duplicate.

@ArcticChar seld-deleted

math.stackexchange.com/questions/4221903/… PSQ

@Peter Marked , thanks.

D - very interesting, but unfortunately with no context whatsoever.

@Lllt I did not notice that this has already been mentioned.

@Peter No problems :-)

Oh no, by mistake I voted to delete a post that was just 22 minutes old! I should have seen it, too trigger happy right there. Have to be careful next time.

This one Kindly avoid deleting until 7-8 hours have passed.

@TeresaLisbon Incredibly, Martin Hopf approved hardmath's result. I cannot believe it, but the routine actually predicted the number of factors. Shocking. I must have missed a lot in the development of ECM.

@Peter We must have missed something, this is really quite surprising! A 59 digit factor out of nowhere!

That means that you can stop your siqs. Unfortunately, I could not run the new routine Martin Hopf apparently used. I do not know with how many threads, but he needed humble 18 hours.

That also means that RSA becomes more and more dangerous. It seems that even 123 digits are now "routine":

@Peter Yes, this is quite surprising, finding the number of digits in such a short time!! I'll stop my siqs.

4 threads and instead of siqs the number field sieve. This is an explanation why the result came so fast. Martin Hopf was also surprised that it took so few time.

@Peter I see.

i have edited the question, can it be re-opened now?

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted user (71): Ito integral, interchange limit and expectation ✏️ by vandenberg on math.SE

this question needs some downvotes to be open for deletion

Does anyone understand this question ?

@rain1 I get this feeling that we are assuming things that the OP doesn't know. For example, the OP should reply to what "confident" and "biased" mean, not us (although we may have an idea, because we don't know the background of this OP we cannot conclude). The point is that context editing has to ensure that one isn't editing something in that the OP hasn't clarified or isn't sure of. In my opinion, the edits are a bit too much, and furthermore I will also say that I find it a bit...

... difficult to rescue this question by context editing, because the amount of context it misses is that much. I understand you may have wanted to add context to the question in order to save your answer, however the rough guidelines around this would say that you shouldn't be editing facts in which the OP may not be aware of. This is my look at the issue.

I want to roll back the edits, but it's better if this is done with your permission.

@TeresaLisbon yes i added a bunch of stuff to the question itself that I believed was better in an answer

you can roll it back but please open the question up again, my goal is to have the question not closed

IMO it is ok if the question does not have precise specifications for terms like confident and biased, the mathematics can point out that these terms need to be elaborated on and give reasonable interpretations

which I did in my answer

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted user (71): Standard Brownian motion convergence by vandenberg on math.SE

@rain1 We are going to need OP to participate for this, unfortunately. I think we have hit a situation where something interesting has occurred : namely that we are "closing" the question for being unclear, but you are interpreting the OP's terms and writing an answer to clarify the same notions that we are calling unclear. If you see an unclear question, do you close it or clarify it in an answer? I'd say that we shouldn't take a chance : have OP participate and let them talk about what...

... notions they have. Hopefully this OP is responsive. Worst -come-worst I can help you design a self-answered question, if we see merit in what is going on.

It's not an unclear question

I think the question is fine but it was closed

I think that the details in answer are sufficient but people seemed to think the question itself needed edited

so I tried that

@rain1 Following your edit, it is clear. But see the questions which others asked : what does "confidence" mean? They also wanted the OP to clarify what "biased" is. I'm not saying that OP's notion will not match with what you wrote, but I believe there is a chance that OP may also not know what edits you have made, and may not actually have clear answers to the questions mentioned.

the thing is that the mathematics in the answer is what motivates clarifying these terms in the question

we normally talk without giving concepts like "fair coin" a second thought, it's ok for the question to ask about that. and an answer to explain that fair needs to be quantified with a parameter like epsilon-fairness

I understand, but this is a "notion" of being biased, and a "notion" of confidence. It would match with what we know, for example, IF we knew that this user was from such a background (learning hypothesis testing for the first time in college). Of course, a counterargument is that no one cares if there's an answer that assumes or guesses context : that's a skill in itself. But I think you shouldn't be editing the question then, because we are still thinking that...

... the definitions that you've inserted actually reflect the OP's question well.

@rain1 Even if $p$ and the confidence-level are fixed, the number of tosses until we can say (with respect to the given level) that the coin is biased is not fixed. We can at best estimate this number of tosses or calculate its average etc.

why would any of these things need to be fixed? We can simply have them be variables

But you ask for the number of tosses needed until we "know" it is biased.

@TeresaLisbon well I kind of agree, I thought the question was fine and didn't need edited - but it was closed so I tried to edit it to pass some criteria to get it reopened. The confidence and bias seemed to be the two things people had issue with so I put clarification for both of those in.

@rain1 I completely understand your actions, and I think you attempted to restore OP's question in a decent way. However, the problem is that it is you clarifying the situation, and not the OP. The point is simple : anybody in the comments could have also answered the question, if they knew what notion the OP was talking about. But none of them wanted to guess and mislead or confuse OP, in case they were wrong.

That's why they asked questions in the comments, and OP didn't clarify these.

Although they did say why the linked question wasn't a duplicate.

that totally makes sense, but I think these are unique reasonable interpretations of the concepts of confidence and fair coin

I know it's frustrating, sometimes we know what the OP is talking about. But in that case, all you need to do is drop a comment saying : "I think ... is the notion of bias and confidence you are referring to, right? I think it's useful to edit this information in since it makes the question clear, so can you edit the question with these details, or shall I edit that in for you?" Something middle-ground like this is very appreciated.

This way, if the OP cares, all they need to do is either edit the question, or clarify what you are saying, or just "can you do it for me?" , and then you edit the question, and can write an answer. That is the best that can happen.

See, we need OP participation. If OP drops a half-hearted question and walks, I'm not sure anybody would answer it seeing benefit of OP in mind : they'd probably do it because it was interesting to them or they see it as being interesting for others.

So if the OP is not responsive, then nothing would stop us from self-answering : we know the notions we want, we know why we want to look at this kind of a question, and we answer it. So it's a win-win : your contribution stays on site, a potentially closable question is closed without an answer, an OP that is confused reads further and comes back with a better edit to reopen the question, I mean, nobody will not benefit from that.

@TeresaLisbon The problem is not the confusion with the terminologies. The problem is that there are too many variables so that I doubt we can find a formula in which we can just insert the parameters to get what we want.

D and maybe flag the answer.

TOP 3 in the category : lowest score

@Peter That is true as well.

this post needs two downvotes to be open for deletion.

@Peter This is just an all-round joke, isn't it? Thankfully enough, it also shows that people aren't going to answer that.

As a comment, this would be OK. A moderator should move it to a comment.

There also seems to be some kind of exam roll number on that question. Who knows, this person may have asked more questions, I'll take a look.

No, thankfully not.

→ 6 messages moved to Martin Hopf's prime numbers

@rain1 When I read the question I initially thought that the OP was asking this out of interest - it's an interesting and natural question, right? However, they never said that this was their reason. Moreover, they've been here for over 7 years and have 4k rep. points which makes me wonder if they have a more formal question in mind and were just lazy when they wrote it. We cannot know which, if either, is the case here without the OP telling us.

@Peter Up for deletion now.

@Peter Gone.

y u ansa ? math.stackexchange.com/questions/4222142/… @rschwieb ur supposed to be against dis stuff

C

Duplicate

D

math.stackexchange.com/questions/4222189/… PSQ

@o.9 IMO there is sufficient context to constructively comment on the attempt. Your mistake is in presuming you know how everyone will evaluate the criteria. The question is rightly marked as a duplicate anyway, now. But the user has feedback about their (admittedly not so great) attempt.

that was already the case before you answered

but ok sounds good

Must be good being a member of cured

Actually nvm

@o.9 If you are referring to the comments, then my response is that I don't consider answers in comments as useful.

Cool

@o.9 Well assuming good-faith here that you are not just trolliing about membership here: yeah, it is nice to be part of the process of trying to increase the content quality. I think anyone would feel the same.

I don't know why I came here lol sorry everyone

@o.9 If you feel like the duplicate does not really add any value, then by all means vote to delete it. I'm considering doing so.

No I don't delete people's stuff unless it's egregious.

I also don't get why you'd consider deleting something you answered but still be adamant about answering it being the go-to move

@o.9 That's fine.

@o.9 the same could be said about being snarky about someone answering a question yet saying it should not be deleted

@o.9 Well again, you're presuming that my values are somehow obliged to conform with yours. I do not think it is so bad to answer so that the user gets some information, and if it later information makes it deletable then it can be deleted.

In fact I am not adamant about answering it, this is a kind of neutral one for me. I will have no qualms if the entire question is deleted.

and CURED is far from an exclusive group, so implying @rschwieb is part of a group you're not a part of is very unfair--the only thing separating you two is voluntarily clicking on this chatroom

No, according to me answering that question was great, I would have answered it also if I didn't think it would get closed, deleted and then I would have been flagged for EOQS

indeed, there has been plenty of disagreements amongst regulars in this very chat room about peers answering questions others deemed in violation of EOQS

yes I've seen amwhy castigate ppl for answering stuff that's true

whatever this was a mistake clearly

have a great day and sorry for the interruption.

If I had posted anything more than a hint, I would have felt like I was stepping on EOQS, yes.

I was answering to the comment right above it

oh sorry yeah now I see the connection :)

@o.9 Anyhow, I'm a bit unclear on why you're here since you do not seem to participate in the site, but if you do start to participate feel free to bring your suggestions on Closing/Undeleting/Reopening/Editing/Deleting here.

Inequalities that can be proven using calculus – too broad?

@o.9 What? Please don't attack people in this room. Or anywhere, for that matter.

@o.9 ... for answering stuff that's of the form "do my work for me", which "do their work for them".

@rschwieb Thanks for keeping to the point of this site, throughout! :-)

@rschwieb They are hiding their profile (note that they have 100k+). They might or might not have an account in MSE, and might be using another username if they had an account.

@ArcticChar Indeed, as I learned a day or two ago. They went to great lengths to make it somewhat difficult for users in Cured and in math.se chats to know who they are.

@Peter Gone.

my username is yorch, and its not great lengths its like 7 clicks

@o.9 Whatever. Please don't make so many socks to try to confuse users, nor to troll this chat or any chat.

@o.9 Ar I see...

Welcome everyone, we also have @user111146 (Derrit Johnson ) who just joined Personal Financed ... Again, someone else.

yorch, Jorge, Mine is quite easy to type, so I see no need to hide in chat with a username of three versus five characters. Nor do i need to hide.

How's it going, @lonestudent?

i dont hide Ive had my full name and personal site on my profile before

@o.9 Yes you do, because you repeatedly change your identity on chat, and on main.

That has nothing to do with hiding

Like anyone with wayback machine can figure anything out they want about me

If you don't hide why are you anonymous btw

@amWhy Hello..I am a little better. Thank you for asking this.

@lonestudent Glad to know! Thanks!

@o.9 It describes me to a tee. I have only a single name: amWhy. Named at birth, on my birth certificate. So, I am and I call myself, who I am. (Notice the frequency of "am". And because my parents anticipated folks like you wondering Why? They though it appropriate to name me amWhy. :-)

@ArcticChar :o

D1, D2, D3, D4

D5, D6, D7, D8

@o.9 Why don't you answer in what way you aren't chronically hiding, rather than point to others for that don't engage in such games. No What aboutism allowed!

who am I supposed to be hiding from

I can't hide my account even if I wanted to

If someone has their full name people claim they are trying to get clout or something

if you change it they say you're hiding

Like you can just write down my user id on a notebook or something

you can even use wayback to get my stackexchange id and find all my "hidden accounts"

@o.9 But I'm not hiding. The 99% of my time I've been who I am. I have no interest in speaking with you further about this. Just please don't engage in trolling chats with every new identity you create. Most of us don't play with tools to hide ourselves, or to make "hidden accounts". If that turns you on, fine. But don't expect me to use such tools to know, oh, just yet an 21st reincarnation of Jorge. I have no interest in the wayback machine. I just don't like these games you play

I don't troll I speak facts

Facts are facts no matter the username

@o.9 Not when they come from a biased user, no matter which account or sock puppet he creates.

Hi @lonestudent o/ (think of the o as my head, and the / as me raising my arm and waving to you) :-)

so what's my bias here?

@amWhy good evening (◔‿◔)

I'm with @ArcticChar. One more delete vote needed on this poor question.

@lonestudent :-)

Also, we need one more delete vote on this PSQ.

@amWhy wrong link?

Oh, I hate that! My clip board is temperamental! I should always check what I paste! Thanks for the FYI

Corrected link to "this poor question" in need of one more delete vote

Thanks again, @vitamind!

No problem. I listened to the song :)

@vitamind That was surprisingly very moving to me, as I first heard it on the radio, driving home after my sister's funeral. I had to pull off the interstate to gather my composure, before continuing my drive home, but it's also rather upbeat in many ways. The acknowledgement and cheers and toasts to the ones we have, and the ones we've lost, and the recognition that "everyone hurts sometime".... But I hadn't posted it yet (but I did, inadvertently!).

close 1

Sure, but Have you acted on any suggestions from others in this chatroom, or discussed another's suggestion today, @Shaun?

@Shaun Very nice guidance you provided to that asker, by the way. One more vote needed to close it.

This one line PSQ received 4 upvotes!. Please consider casting a close vote.

@Shaun @amWhy closed.

@amWhy I have in the past, @amWhy.

@amWhy Thank you. The comments are from the template meta thread, as I'm sure you know.

@Shaun Yes, no problem.

@Shaun Yes, indeed. I just find them hard to find when I need them! :( But I've definitely noticed you regularly post helpful comments.

@lonestudent Thanks!

@amWhy Rest in peace.

@lonestudent Indeed. Thank you.

@amWhy I also lost my family.