« first day (4259 days earlier)      last day (533 days later) » 

02:08
^^^ The rudeness has been handled by a diamond mod (thanks!). The dupe answer still needs 2 D's (alas I mistakenly retracted my D due to the poor UI - amazing they have not fixed this yet).
 
1 hour later…
03:14
Edit war (OP self-vandalizing): math.stackexchange.com/questions/4766241/…
 
1 hour later…
04:35
@NoahSchweber OP is writing non sense, I closed the question but now it's needed deletion
I can't understand how this answers the question (or simplifies it)
 
4 hours later…
08:45
D PSQ & dupe of huge FAQ, nothing novel.
09:23
@amWhy sadly twice undelete-voted.
10:37
-1
Q: Identification of non-trivial zeros of Riemann zeta function using Riemann functional equation

Martin PribylPlease, is it correct to argue the following? Let us set the Riemann functional equation equal to zero $$ \pi^{-\frac{s}{2}} \Gamma\left(\frac{s}{2}\right) \zeta(s) = \pi^{-\frac{x+iy}{2}} \Gamma\left(\frac{x+iy}{2}\right) \zeta(x+iy) = 0,\ x\in (0,1), y\in \mathbb{R}. $$ Factors $\pi^{-\frac{x+i...

10:54
math.stackexchange.com/a/4766587/1118406 users fighting in the comment section
never mind
 
3 hours later…
13:45
This is super unclear to me. I've been trying for an hour to get the original asker to respond, and they aren't. Meanwhile, five answers have accumulated. People, jumping the gun. :/ Real analysis: are things really more complicated than they seem?‭ - semisimpleton‭ 2023-09-10 11:52:08Z
 
2 hours later…
15:47
@SmokeDetector The linked user is “senthil kumar” when the OP is actually “snaz”. Is this an error with smoke detector?
@ТymaGaidash٠ No. The link is to an answer, not the question.
 
2 hours later…
17:50
@XanderHenderson closed. Perhaps the comments, if they continue below the question, could be moved to a chatroom? The thread is not outrageously long. But if it gets longer....
@amWhy Yes, thank you. I've been keeping an eye on it.
 
3 hours later…
20:44
0
A: Requests for Reopen & Undeletion Votes (volume 01/2022 - today)

angryavianI am requesting to reopen "Bounding with exponential Markov inequality". The asker posted a question and showed the work that they had done so far. They explained where they got stuck (can't show $at-\phi(t)$ is positive), and their unsuccessful attempts (Taylor expansion). I explained why they w...

 
2 hours later…

« first day (4259 days earlier)      last day (533 days later) »