« first day (3545 days earlier)      last day (74 days later) » 

 
3 hours later…
4:52 AM
@amWhy Up for deletion now.
@amWhy I wasn't one of the voters, but I cannot understand the first line of your answer. Perhaps you meant to say we must have √x ∈ ℝ.
 
 
2 hours later…
7:08 AM
This has been asked and answered many times: math.stackexchange.com/q/4260256/42969
It is a pity that some high rep users (and even the leading contributors in inequalities) don’t care for duplicates.
 
8:08 AM
C proof of goldbach conjecture.
 
8:43 AM
@amWhy I am unable to stop looking at the the votes in order to determine whether a post should be deleted since I don't do it at all. I see no point in telling the OP that $x$ must be non-negative. It is clear that he knows that $-1/4$ cannot possible be a solution. For the same reason, the final sentence is a waste of time.
 
8:55 AM
Well, thanks for the feedback, @JoséCarlosSantos, @user21820.
 
9:35 AM
If you haven't checked: D1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 in here still need some delete votes.
 
9:54 AM
D1, D2, D3, D4
D5, D6, D7, D8
 
 
2 hours later…
11:27 AM
 
 
2 hours later…
1:24 PM
Polling for opinions. This dismal question was duly closed, but generated an in my opinion nice answer. It is probably old hat to group theorists, but I don't recall seeing that argument earlier. Therefore I will make a salvage effort. But, I think a completely rewritten version is probably best. What do you think? I guess I will follow the standard procedure and give the OP a good faith chance to fix their post.
A misgiving I have is that it is very contrived for me to now rewrite the question. Ideally this would be a duplicate, and I could invite Giorgos to copy/paste their answer there. Alas, I could not find a good one.
 
1:45 PM
@JyrkiLahtonen I cannot say anything about whether the problem is interesting or not, because that is not my area of expertise. But if it is (and is not a duplicate) then a new question might be the best, in the spirit of Guidelines for context edits and rewrites: “If the question is unsalvageable, you can rewrite it entirely by posting a new question.”
 
1:59 PM
Slightly more than a PSQ. Is it sufficient? Another way to measure closed set‭ - Laurence PW‭ 2021-09-23 16:55:52Z
This duplicate can probably be deleted. Zero Product Rule in Matrix Multiplication‭ - StarLord‭ 2021-08-21 13:42:29Z
Closed as a duplicate, but should have been closed as a PSQ. Intuition for why a rectangle with a fixed perimeter has a maximal area when $L=W$‭ - Num Toez‭ 2021-09-11 14:22:55Z
This seems unclear to me, but basically comes down to "for every" vs "there exists". Is there a good dupe target? or should it just be closed for lack of clarity? Can someone explain why this set is wrong in describing even numbers?‭ - Curulian‭ 2021-09-14 18:09:21Z
 
@JyrkiLahtonen Why don't you write an FAQ on basic techniques for proving possible orders of simple groups?
That way, we won't have a problem of a "contrived" rewrite, and we would get a pearl of long-lasting quality. =)
 
3:04 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, repeating characters in body, repeating characters in title (226): !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by Itamar Nunes Costa on math.SE
 
4:02 PM
@JyrkiLahtonen I'm sorry, but that question is a poster child for "PSQs". The whole point of the EoQS was to encourage would-be-answerers to hold off answering, unless and until the OP improved the question, and encouraging potential answerers to assist the OP in approving the, with a link, e.g., to "How to ask a good question". There are many deleted questions that were better asked than this question.
@JyrkiLahtonen Improve a better question; please don't award an asker for a shitty non-question.
Note also, @user21820 There is no "one size fits all" regarding questions about groups of order n.
 
4:43 PM
@XanderHenderson Absolutely. I answered your question. So what do we do? Yes: PSQ with five upvotes and an answerer with five votes, and another PSQ answerer who tried to answer. *8 downvotes, minimally are required, without intervention from those who reopen just to frustrate closers. I find such posts every ten minutes I'm here. What do you suggest? I'm fully aware of such abuse, do you think you need to inform most of us? Usually, we're the ones informing mods.
We are generally the ones who find more low quality questions and answers that we have votes for, and now you point out some of which we already reviewed. Are we to give priority to actions on the posts you link, @Xander? (10 requests today, in the last three others.)
In the last 3 hours.
 
@amWhy Yes I agree, which is why I said "basic techniques". What I had in mind was just that an FAQ that covers the basic techniques would be better than singular questions each about a specific possible order.
 
4:59 PM
@user21820 But "basic techniques" is itself too wide a category. Is the order prime? then......., is the order identical to orders of symmetric groups, then, ...., Can the group of order 15 be written .... etc.... If algebra isn't your thing, you might not understand. Anyway, the question Jyrki linked needs to be closed. If someone wants to cover all ways to identify an order of a group, with a group, fine. But the question posted by Jyrki is worse than a PSQ. There are better posts to use
... as a basis for a abstract dupe.
@Xander Please trust that users in the chat room have nuanced ways in which we encounter poor question, (which shouldn't be answered), and poor answers), and we could use more moderator help, than mods need to have our help.
 
@amWhy Of course I know there are a plethora of basic techniques for that. But I've seen some really big FAQs on Math SE before, so I am not against such an FAQ. And of course we agree that the question mentioned here is a PSQ, which is the reason for my close-vote and downvote and delete-vote. Moreover, it is now up for deletion.
 
@user21820 Thanks for the heads up. One more delete vote needed. If a very long FAQ on the orders of various groups can be written well, I'm all for it. I haven't viewed such lengthy posts, so my comments earlier were in terms of the length of an answer to a post, which is not TL;DR ;D
@user21820 Do you have any delete vote requests? I prefer those you list, over another frequent poster.
 
@amWhy I will post a list soon.
 
BTW, @Teresa, @Peter, I am not referring to you in my above comment.
@user21820 No rush; I will save my some of my delete votes until then. Wrt close vote requests, I rarely have many votes to spare outside of reviews.
 
Delete requests need 1 more delete vote each, except for D3, which is gone.
^^^^Meant to ping you, @user21820 =D
 
6:19 PM
@amWhy Thanks!
 
7:04 PM
@amWhy Your response to me feels angry / defensive, and I don't understand that reaction. A lot of the questions
 
@XanderHenderson Sorry, I was not angry, and certainly not defensive. Sorry you felt that way. Have a good day!
 
In any event, a lot of the questions / answers I post here are those that I come across while following up on EoQS flags. If I close a bunch of questions and then send a message to a user regarding several borderline questions which I have unilaterally closed, then the user can easily respond "The moderator(s) acted unilaterally, the community should have a chance to voice an opinion!"
 
Feed back. Period Don't read more into it.
 
If, on the other hand, five users vote to close, then it is much easier to make the case that the question is of low quality.
 
@XanderHenderson I understand. I'm sorry I didn't realize you were trying to get feedback on flagged @EoQS. I am sorry that my cluelessness of that didn't read your mind. I understand you are not at liberty to say more than what you say, but please don't assume we are angry when addressing comments we don't understand. Again, apologies, I meant no ill intent, Me bad, me bad, me bad :(
 
7:11 PM
 
It's frustrating that we are intentionally kept in the dark, and frustrating for you and other mods that you can say only so much, which explains most of the misunderstandings being mods and users. It's the nature of SE, it seems. From now on I will always regard your words as more informed than mind, @Xander.
All gone, @Peter.
 
@amWhy It is frustrating for me, also, that moderation on Math SE cannot be more transparent, but this is the system set up by the SE overlords, enforced via an NDA, and there is not a lot that I can do to change that.
arg... fat fingered the keyboard.
 
I understand, @Xander aka "Fat Fingers" ;P
Dems the way tings ar
I haven't noticed Bill Dubuque for quite some time. In the previous year or two, he was tackling many dupes, and would stop in here for assistance for closing dupes. In any case, I miss the guy.
 

« first day (3545 days earlier)      last day (74 days later) »