« first day (3837 days earlier)      last day (652 days later) » 

5:21 AM
0
A: Requests for Reopen & Undeletion Votes (volume 01/2022 - today)

ryangMy Question is ostensibly similar to this Question as they refer to and are illustrated by the same mathematical exercise. However, they do not duplicate each other, because the former queries about the derivation of the upper bound of a particular detail used to algorithmically obtain the solut...

 
 
5 hours later…
10:37 AM
@Feeds should be closed
 
11:05 AM
0
Q: What are the sieve method that has been used to calculate the asymtotic density of prime k tuple?

Salman MahmudI have made a sieve mathod for calculating the asymtotic density of prime k tuple. The sieve method is so elemetary and I didn't use any kind of probability theory. But the interesting thing is that I getting the same result as k tuple conjecture gives. Can I use my result as supporting evidence ...

 
@XanderHenderson @XanderHenderson Oh good. cheers
 
 
1 hour later…
12:41 PM
another case where a duplicate was answered by a super-high rep user.
 
12:58 PM
@Feeds should be deleted
 
@Peter Did you cast a duplicate vote?
 
I did not find a good target yet, but the irrationality of $\sqrt{n}$ must be a duplicate.
 
1:22 PM
-1
Q: Quantum chaos, Mertens function and possible new point of view on RH

Guillaume BarbeyThis is a duplicate of this discussion on MO : https://mathoverflow.net/questions/426648/quantum-chaos-mertens-function-and-a-possible-new-point-of-view-on-rh As an amateur mathematician, I appologize if things are not as rigourous as you could expect from a professional. It is obviously an heuri...

 
DV/Del dupe of huge faq with high rep cherry picking
 
@MartinR one more delete-vote needed
 
1
Q: $3x+1$ Conjecture and link with Ergodic Theory

3m0oI read here https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/upload_library/22/Ford/Lagarias3-23.pdf that the Collatz conjecture is equivalent to $ Q_{\infty}(\mathbb{N}) \subseteq \frac{1}{3} \mathbb{Z} $. Where $Q_{\infty} : \mathbb{Z}_2 \to \mathbb{Z}_2 $ is a continous and measure preserving trans...

 
 
5 hours later…
6:49 PM
C: PSQ.
 
7:20 PM
Hi @XanderHenderson : in this post I was wanting to document for future reference that this person is on a trajectory to come into conflict with quality enforcement. I think their conduct in the comments and writing the solution is objective evidence they are intentionally breaking those guidelines. The post in question has already been resolved, but I was wondering if I should drop it as a flag even then. Advice?
 
I request that this posting be re-opened. In my opinion, it was false characterized as a duplicate. However, it is not a duplicate because the OP is specifically asking " where did I go wrong", rather than asking how to use Inclusion-Exclusion.
 
 
2 hours later…
9:22 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Potentially bad ns for domain in answer, username similar to website in answer (69): Derivation of the density function of student t-distribution from this big integral.‭ by NicksTechnicalBlog‭ on math.SE
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Potentially bad ns for domain in answer, username similar to website in answer (69): why t-distribution and normal distribution?‭ by NicksTechnicalBlog‭ on math.SE
 
 
1 hour later…
10:49 PM
@rschwieb In general, feel free to raise a flag. In this specific case, I'll go have a look
@user2661923 This the the problem with solution verification questions. Personally, I don't see how "where did I go wrong?" adds much value, or distinguishes a questions significantly.
 
11:14 PM
@XanderHenderson I agree that it is not as valuable, although this particular Math posting may be an exception, since it describes the pitfalls of the direct approach. However, that isn't my real objection to the closing. The question is simply not a duplicate, and is also not a low quality question; the OP showed work.. If the question is to be closed, there has to be a valid reason, such as amending the quality standards to require that questions be of general interest.
 
@XanderHenderson thanks!
 

« first day (3837 days earlier)      last day (652 days later) »