D1, D2, D3

D4, D5, D6

D7, D8, D9

D10, D11, D12

C (The OP completely messed up the definition, and if they fix it, it will be a duplicate anyway)

@ArcticChar ugh... 10 upvotes eh

del-pls probability-theory Unanswered dupe with enough upvotes to not get roomba'd. When does the power series $\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_nx^n$ have infinitely many zeros in $(0,1)$?‭ - Dreamworld2001‭ 2023-03-22 11:41:20Z

To the number theorists: I wonder if “Can 10..09 be a perfect square?” has been asked/answered before.

needs clarification: math.stackexchange.com/q/4668800/29335

PSQ math.stackexchange.com/q/4668854/29335

Dv/Del dupe of FAQ on CRT, with high rep cherry picking. Nothing novel (hundreds of possible dupe targets)

Dv/Del psq & dupe of big FAQ

math.stackexchange.com/a/967954/21813 <--- Is it just me who is confuddled by this answer??

Close PSQ and maybe a dupe too (didn't check).

@ryang Yikes. Nine year old question with a wrong answer. I don't think that either the answer or the question add much value. I would recommend deleting the question, too.

@BillDubuque Yeah, if it's a PSQ, there really is no need to check for dupes, unless you are trying to be overly kind to the asker.

@BillDubuque What does CRT (critical race theory) have to say about the CRT (Chinese remainder theorem)?

close and delete PSQ

cv-pls geometry The question is a PSQ (I'll cast a fifth close vote); both answers are, in my opinion, sub-par and could be deleted (i'll probably convert at least one to a comment, but withhold judgement on the other). A formula relates to a segment and the orthocenter of a triangle‭ - anonimo‭ 2023-03-29 04:40:00Z

cv-pls calculus Hardly more than a PSQ; kind of also seems like nonsense to me without a little more explanation about what a differential is supposed to be. Is this statement correct : $\frac{dv}{dt}\times dx=\frac{dx}{dt}\times dv$‭ - JustPassingby‭ 2023-03-16 18:50:16Z

@XanderHenderson Alas, indeed, "race theory" greatly trumps math in CRT web searches, and this will likely set back ENT education, e.g. when I added "CRT" to the wikipedia article some fool rejected the edit as "uncommon" (likely because the race theory matches obscured how common it is in math, e.g. search Google Books or Scholar).

I didn't fight it (Wikipedia politics is orders of magnitude worse than here) so the wikipedia article still lacks the CRT abbrev.

Dv/Del Another PSQ? & dupe of big FAQ featuring political (pity?) upvotes on poor answer by new user. Hundreds of possible dupes for this.

Do you seek a site which is a stream of low quality (fgitw) answers or a library of proofs from the book? If you seek the latter it is essential to delete dupes that add nothing new, else the "best" answers will never be locatable by search.

(so all our past efforts will be wasted since users will give up searching for answer given that the results are swmaped with hundreds of low quality dupes).

If you don't want all of your many years of past efforts here to go to waste it is essential to prevent the site from devolving in this mannner. This is one of the primary reasons that killed prior math sites.

The reason I emphasize this is because it seems many users here are taking actions only on PSQs and not dupes. But massive duplication can kill the site just as easily as massive PSQs.

@BillDubuque I entirely agree, but a good question asked well---even if it is a dupe---can be useful as a signpost. Thus it is not entirely unreasonable to focus on quality more than duplication. That is not to say that duplication should be ignored, only that it makes sense (to me) to emphasize quality.

@XanderHenderson If the signpost is the only reason for a post to exist then this can be remedied by adding the signpost (keywords etc) to the canonical dupes, then deleting the dupe. It is always a good idea when processing dupes to check that the targets can be (easily) located by searches.

If not, then add some keywords, math expressions, etc that will aid searches (I've even invented names to aid searches and memory recall)

But - even still - it is often difficult for me to locate dupes I know exist - due to the massive number of (mostly useless) dupe matches. If it is that difficult for an experienced user it is surely hopeless for novices. So they give up, and end up being limited to the knowledge in answers supplied at the moment - losing out on all the knowledge accumulate over the past 13 years.

If we greatly improve the search experience, then there will be far less PSQs (since users can find an answer by searching). Further, they will receive much higher quality answers - being informed by (all) users over the oast 13 years, vs. only the past 13 minutes (of front page exposure). But there is no hope for such as long as massive duplication is permitted.