CURED - 2023-01-24

« first day (4030 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (762 days later) »

Xander Henderson

01:00

cv-pls arithmetic Lacking context / clarity? What is the most effective way to divide?‭ - Camelot823‭ 2023-01-23 21:18:37Z

1 hour later…

bobeyt6

02:17

math.stackexchange.com/questions/4624597/… close

math.stackexchange.com/questions/4624575/… close answered

1 hour later…

bobeyt6

03:39

math.stackexchange.com/questions/4624616/… close

math.stackexchange.com/questions/4624613/… close

6 hours later…

Peter

09:33

@amWhy I agree that it should be closed, but I do not know which reason hits the nail on the head. Maybe "opinion-based" ?

@bobeyt6 The answerer of this poorly written question even begged for an accept !

Martin R

10:30

@bobeyt6 That is also a (multiple) duplicate.

3 hours later…

Peter

13:01

@bobeyt6 can be deleted

please close and downvote

same here - the answer should be a comment, but I do not think that a flag will be accepted.

Xander Henderson

@Peter I am not sure why that question or answer should be closed / deleted. Do you consider the question to be off-topic? or is it deficient in some other way? If so, how?

Peter

13:21

I admit after having thought about it that the question could be on-topic as a terminology-question . But concerning the answer I do think a comment would have been enough.

I retracted my close-vote. I could not retract the downvote because of time limitation.

Xander Henderson

@Peter Answers should be posted as answers. In this case, I don't see how one might improve the answer.

It answers the terminology question, and provides references.

What more is needed?

Martin R

13:37

@Peter You can vote again on a question or answer if it is edited. I have seen that users (with the edit privilege) made minor edits to a post only to be able to change their vote (e.g. because they realized that their initial vote was not justified).

It would be interesting to know if that is an accepted practice ...

2 hours later…

KReiser

15:18

delete both answers here - they're both messy, unclear, and don't really answer the question.

2 hours later…

amWhy

17:47

Please delete.

@XanderHenderson Please explain why, @Xander?

Xander Henderson

@amWhy I'm not sure what you want me to explain. I asked a question, which I could expand to "Is this question lacking context or clarity?"

Below the question, there are comments:

@Shaun: calculating a reciprocal and multiplying is an inefficient way of dividing, so not the "key". — Rob Arthan 19 hours ago

Yes, @RobArthan, but it is the concept behind division, is it not? Perhaps I misinterpreted the question . . . — Shaun 18 hours ago

These seem to indicate that these two users do not have the same interpretation of the question, which implies that the question might not be entirely clear.

amWhy

@XanderHenderson agreed. I've added my vote to close. But I question the unspoken acceptance of all answers provided by former mods: math.stackexchange.com/review/first-questions/1906845, to questions, which if answered by anyone never a mod, would be quickly deleted.

Xander Henderson

@amWhy I am not sure that I follow your reasoning. The question you just linked to is, so far as I can tell, completely unrelated to the question I linked to. I agree that the question you linked to is probably not a very good question for this site, but I don't think that it is clear-cut enough that I can unilaterally close it (perhaps that is the similarity?---neither question is "bad enough" for me to take unilateral action).

Feeds

-3

Q: Does this prove that no Collatz sequence can be divergent?

I seem to have proved that Collatz sequences cannot be infinitely divergent (They must be cyclic or converge at 1 eventually). Here is the full proof https://www.scribd.com/document/621649137/Collatz-Proof-Second-Draft# . I would appreciate any feedback.

Xander Henderson

(In the case of the summation question I already cast a third close vote, so closing it again at this moment would be an abuse of moderator powers.)

Noah Schweber

17:58

Can someone with number theory content knowledge take a look at this answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/4624790/28111? It reads like GPT-generated nonsense to me, and if memory serves the poster was previously banned (under a different account it seems) for precisely that, but this is out of my area so I'm not sure.

amWhy

@XanderHenderson I wasn't asking you to; and I'm sorry, I thought you were responding to Peter's comment to me. Thanks for the added clarification. My bad.

Xander Henderson

No worries.

Peter

@Feeds can be deleted

Xander Henderson

@Peter Or just let Roomba get it.

amWhy

@Xander I haven't checked chat in the past 15+ hours, so I should have read comments here more carefully, prior to my first comment. But thanks.

Xander Henderson

18:03

Again, no worries. Asynchronous chat with many parties interacting has its drawbacks as a clear medium for communication. :)

amWhy

Please delete this link-only answer.

@NoahSchweber Seems you may very well be correct. What are some tell-tale signs of such posts. It strikes me as a Wikipedia cursory recitation.

@NoahSchweber Open for deletion, one more delete vote needed. I'm more certain it's inappropriate. @Peter

:62837970 No problem. Mainly I was updating you. Thanks for your post here.

Xander Henderson

18:30

@NoahSchweber The HuggingFace GPT detector does not flag this as GPT generated (though the detector is not infallible).

However, the answer has been deleted.

amWhy

@Xander What are the current "detectors"? I can find the one you mention above easily enough. Are they all mainly AI detectors?

Xander Henderson

@amWhy I have used the HuggingFace detector. I have also heard of one called GPTZero, but I have never been able to get it to work.

Those are the only two I know of.

And HuggingFace is, I believe, built from GPT-2, while the most recent version is GPT-3, so it is, perhaps, inclined toward false negatives.

amWhy

@XanderHenderson Thanks!

Feeds

18:48

-2

Q: Does this prove that no Collatz sequence can be divergent?

I seem to have proved that Collatz sequences cannot be infinitely divergent (They must be cyclic or converge at 1 eventually). I like to play around with the Millennium conjectures and the Collatz conjecture, and yesterday evening I happened to be thinking about summation problems too (see why it...

number-theory modular-arithmetic collatz-conjecture

Martin R

19:04

@XanderHenderson, @amWhy: Just mentioning that Glorfindel wrote a userscript which adds a “Detect OpenAI” button to all posts: stackapps.com/questions/9611/openai-detector. It also uses the HuggingFace detector.

Xander Henderson

@MartinR Yup, I have that running. I believe it uses the HuggingFace detector?

Peter

please close - opinion-based

amWhy

19:37

@MartinR Awesome. Thanks for the info!

amWhy

19:52

@Peter Worse, it lacks sufficient context to answer conclusively. In any case, the post should be closed, I agree.

3 hours later…

amWhy

22:41

Please close: lacks context, and needs focus.

bobeyt6

math.stackexchange.com/questions/4625184/… close

bobeyt6

22:57

math.stackexchange.com/questions/4625189/… close opinon-based or missing details

amWhy

@bobeyt6 slow down with the flood of requests. Typically we ask that requests come from users who can vote to close, when posting as frequently as you do. You seem to be unable to contribute to other users' requests in this room, yet on Sat. you made 15 requests here. I really appreciate your enthusiasm, just contribute, at least, to requests from others to better interact with users here, and we all need feedback, and we can all learn.

@bobeyt6 You've done nothing wrong, at all. Kind of like on math.se, there's a culture/learning curve (I'm pretty sure the curve isn't too steep here in this chatroom). We're glad to have you aboard!

« first day (4030 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (762 days later) »

all rooms