CURED - 2022-01-01

« first day (3642 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1150 days later) »

05:29

@ParamanandSingh So, would it be reasonable for a moderator to delete it if enough users (say 5) support it? I can't stand this useless post sitting around with a high score telling every clueless visitor mathematical nonsense and telling every clued visitor that Math SE is unreliable. =|

1 hour later…

Paramanand Singh

06:56

@user21820 well deleting an answer on the basis of mathematical correctness is something we should avoid as a moderator. But yes if enough delete votes accrue for such obviously wrong answers I personally don't see a problem deleting it. The usual recipe for such answers however is to downvote and send it to oblivion.

user21820 HATES SMOKING-HATS

07:17

@ParamanandSingh As I stated in my original comment, delete-votes cannot accrue due to the existing upvotes. So that is why we need a moderator to delete it even if 100 users want to delete it!

As long as the moderators are fine with taking such an action backed by supporting users, then we can call for users to explicitly express their intention to delete here. (I am, of course, one of them.)

2 hours later…

Peter

09:23

Peter

09:49

Peter

10:06

I think, this is a duplicate. What is a suitable target ?

5 hours later…

Lalit Tolani

14:41

math.stackexchange.com/questions/4346228/… PSQ

Ѕааԁ

@user21820HATESSMOKING-HATS My personal opinion is that actions of disintegrity should be punished, but the current frame of community rules has a loophole here. The most ideal situation would be that cheaters be reported to their colleges, but everyone knows that it's too unrealistic to even attempt to enforce that.

@user21820HATESSMOKING-HATS And it would be a continuous effort to improve my English :)

C1 (last request), C2,

C3, C4, C5

D1, D2, D3

user21820 HATES SMOKING-HATS

15:01

@Ѕааԁ Thanks, I agree with that. In the end, I decided to close for lack of context stating its source. At least that is factually true.

@Ѕааԁ Keep it up! "would be that cheaters are reported" is probably preferable; the one with "be" is technically grammatically correct but it sounds just a bit odd. =)

2 hours later…

Prithu biswas

16:42

@user21820HATESSMOKING-HATS I know this is too late to say , but happy new year.

user21820 HATES SMOKING-HATS

16:55

@Prithubiswas Never too late, same to you! =)

user21820 HATES SMOKING-HATS

17:06

Bogus answer because the line starting "it is obvious" is as wrong as a stopped clock; (e^(2πi))^(1/2) ≠ e^(2πi/2).

user21820 HATES SMOKING-HATS

17:29

Bogus answer because a failed induction proof attempt implies nothing about the truth-value of the claim. @amWhy @ParamanandSingh

Bill Dubuque

C/D I closed this post as a dupe of this, which has a Theorem exactly answering the OP's question. It was gold-badge reopened by amWhy w/o any justification (alas, she seems to be on a strange compaign to reverse many of my dupe closures). It can also be closed as a PSQ depending on one's views, though that is less constructive.

Bill Dubuque

18:08

C/D Here's another one which still needs a couple close votes (as I mentioned before the dupe is exactly the same equation only formatted differently - proper vs improper fractions - so it is an exact dupe, with nothing novel; in fact the answers there already start with the rewritten equation so apply immediately to the latest question).

user21820 HATES SMOKING-HATS

18:18

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12.

C1, C2, C3.

C4, C5, C6.

C7, C8, C9.

C10, C11, C12.

« first day (3642 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1150 days later) »

all rooms