« first day (3749 days earlier)      last day (1042 days later) » 

01:45
This post contains two question marks, but both sentences don't look like questions. Needs a lot more context. Please close.
 
5 hours later…
06:31
2
Q: Why is it so difficult to prove $\mathbf{NP} ≠ \mathbf{P}$?

profPlumI'm just curious because I saw on Wikipedia a single polynomial time solution to any NP-hard problem would imply there are polynomial time solutions for every single NP-hard problem. Also I assume there are a lot of NP-hard problems... So does that mean no one has ever been able to prove for any ...

 
2 hours later…
08:13
Since I posted my answer asking for feedback whether there is something wrong with it, the question it answers received 3 close votes (and I got one more downvote). Being that this is CURED I think it's just the right place to discuss this - that's the reason I posted that here - so I can hear your opinions. Isn't it a standard solution-verification question of which we see tens of them posted (and keep open) daily? What makes this different?
08:55
 
4 hours later…
12:54
@Snaw It seems to be a pretty standard PSQ of no lasting value to the site so I think I can see why people might be voting to close. Your answer appears to add almost nothing to the comment to the question (telling the OP that it's uniform is arguably worthwhile, but equally wasn't asked about so could be considered tangential). The downvotes may be to ensure that the question can be closed and deleted but I am speculating now.
13:20
@postmortes Thanks! I didn't know there was a relationship between the score of the answers and the ability to delete the question. Personally it doesn't seem like a PSQ to me as the attempt at the solution was given and so it seems like a standard solution-verification type question. I understand it could be a matter of personal taste. (I agree my answer doesn't add too much to Kavi's comment, but I thought it's better to have it answered rather than be left without an answer.)
13:40
-4
Q: A disproof of the Riemann hypothesis?

user697626This appears to be a plausible disproof of the Riemann hypothesis, but do you see any mistake ? Claim: Let $\Theta \in [\frac{1}{2}, 1]$ be the supremum of the real parts of the zeros of $\zeta$. Then $\Theta=1$. PROOF. Denote by $\Lambda$ the von Mangoldt function. For $x \geq 1$, define $\psi(...

@Feeds Repost of math.stackexchange.com/q/4429459/42969 (which is now deleted).
14:09
0
Q: Is there anything known about the tree width of the direct sum of two graphs?

AkatsukiMalikiSo, if you have two graphs (both with a designated edge), you could take the direct sum of those two graphs, where you glue those two graphs to each other along the designated edge. I think different literature use different definitions. Anyways, see the picture below as an example of gluing two ...

 
2 hours later…
 
2 hours later…
17:44
One more close-vote needed at this >50-fold duplicate: math.stackexchange.com/q/4430520/42969
 
2 hours later…
20:23
DV/Del FGITW low-quality link-only answer posted to an obviously misformulated question, which is now not-an-answer after the OP fixed the question. Author refuses to delete the answer.
20:50
@MartinR And now, only a delete vote is needed.
 
2 hours later…
22:46
@BillDubuque It can be deleted now.

« first day (3749 days earlier)      last day (1042 days later) »