A PSQ: math.stackexchange.com/q/4242138/42969 (with one answer not answering the question, and another answer repeating a well-known series derivation).
@user21820 Even at the time the question was asked it was purely opinion-based , so not suitable for this site whatsoever, but many of those questions (like this) were upvoted to heaven. And in fact, the answer is not an answer. And that the majority of the non-mathematicians do not understand what a complex number is, is just nonsense.
I'd really like to have a discussion here, when many of us are available, about users condemning other answers for answering poor questions, and call for deletions on questions not answered by them, but create their own trail of answering PSQs/clueless posts, addressing others in the community, rather than the OP. The issue I have is that they frequently use this chat room.
@Shaun ^^^nothing to do with you. Just clarifying because I posted after your most recent post; just coincidentally.
Mainly, I'd like us to outline, without naming name some bullet points that we can more or less agree on regarding on site and in chat behavior in our chat. We still need to value diverse views, and the bullet points ought to make this clear: we may not all agree in some cases, and that's okay. But I'm concerned about the possibility who promote, "do what I say, not what I do", quality control for everyone else, except them. Again, not about any one user, and not about rare incidences.
Just an idea! @Xander Can I talk to you about this?
@XanderHenderson Yes, I just found it rather circuitous and TOO LONG TO BOTHER READING. Like, remember the creator of a new way to express base 2, to be more concise? My objection was more that was kind of like masterbation (now that I have your attention:) like self-gratification, not really any attempt to assist an asker).
@XanderHenderson I guess I'm feeling rather cynical about the site today; I suspect we all have those days, (I think?)
If I had a normal delete vote, I would cast one on several of those answers (I mean, wtf is up with those triangles, wedges, and vees? c'mon, people!).
Alas, my vote-to-delete is permanent, so I can't cast any.
I am also annoyed by the assertion made at the start: WE ALL KNOW that if $x^y=z$, then $x = \sqrt[y]{z}$.
No... that is not true. The equation $x^y=z$ has more than one solution. One of those solutions is, indeed, the principal $y$-th root, but there are other solutions.
@XanderHenderson Indeed. I guess I'm appreciating good pedagogy now more than every. Some users answer by oversimplifying, others talk over the OPs head. I think this relates to robjohn's Goldilocks analogy.
I'm really tempted to post an answer to that question saying, essentially, (1) We already have a unified notation (in terms of $\exp$ and $\log$), (2) there are historic reasons why we might want to use the traditional notation, (3) it is bad pedagogy to invent new notation, and (4) YOUR OPENING ASSERTIONS ARE WRONG!!!! X(
I mean, I just introduced exponential notation to my precalculus classes this week. One of the things that I emphasized a lot is that, while we might initially define $a^n$ to mean repeated multiplication (e.g. if $a \in \mathbb{R}$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}$), this notion of what exponentiation "is" rapidly fails to make sense. I mean, even allowing negative exponents wrecks the idea that exponentiation is repeated multiplication.
What happens when the exponent is rational? or, heaven forbid, complex?
@XanderHenderson I just saw the answer again, and the question: Old post (2011!), freshly answered, today! Why do users think they have some earth-shattering answer and feel compelled to answer? I can see, potentially "testing the waters" for newer users, but this answer is over the top. But likely tempting for said user to answer.
I pinged you with respect to that question/answers. But I'd rather not name names, but I really am concerned when encountering user/users who frequent this chat more than any other, but .... At some point, if you are comfortable, I'd like to speak privately with you. Not often; just here and there.
Arg! Stupid UI! I accidentally posted an answer before I wanted to, then deleted an answer I didn't want to delete. @amWhy, if you voted to delete the answer discussed above, you will need to recast that vote.
Hello. Thanks. I'm trying to give the new folks who ask logic questions decent advice. I learned a ton from the folks here who've answered my questions in that topic over the past two years or so.
Ugh... I am going to let that answer sit for an hour or two. It has been too long since I have done any complex analysis, and I am not entirely happy with the presentation in the "Epilog".
