« first day (4428 days earlier)      last day (366 days later) » 

Ѕᴀᴀᴅ
Ѕᴀᴀᴅ
02:10
@MartinR The only two unaccepted and interactable answers have two down votes each, but these answers seem to be above the bottom line of quality.
 
6 hours later…
Martin R
Martin R
08:00
I suggest to close (and maybe delete) this question about Newton's method and iteration again (“needs more focus” or “needs details or clarity”). The question had some close voted shortly after it was posted, these expired during a bounty. Later it was closed but (for some reason) reopened.
The system claims that I cannot vote again after retracting a vote, which I honestly can not remember.
Even after 16 revision the question is quite unclear. The self answer is a link to another answer (so is it a duplicate or not?). Both question and answer consist (im my opinion) of a wild mixture of “remarks” and “examples”.
 
2 hours later…
Martin R
Martin R
09:46
^--- Too late. The question had already four close votes (again), but is now protected from closure by an active bounty.
Ѕᴀᴀᴅ
Ѕᴀᴀᴅ
10:01
C1
↑ See also this message from the next door.
 
2 hours later…
Ѕᴀᴀᴅ
Ѕᴀᴀᴅ
12:10
C2
 
2 hours later…
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
14:12
del-pls 20k+ polynomials I don't know what this question means. It seems to be all over the place. Iteration + Newton's method $\to$ roots approximation of polynomials : too good to be true?‭ - DesmosTutu‭ 2023-07-18 09:40:47Z
Feeds
Feeds
14:36
0
Q: Denjoy's Probabilistic Interpretation

NCYDoes Denjoy's Probabilistic Interpretation actually "prove" that the Mertens function ratio between numbers with odd number of distinct prime factors and even number of prime factors is 1? Or does it just provide an estimate/gess based on a heuristic approach? If not, then would one get credit if...

prime-numbers riemann-zeta prime-factorization riemann-hypothesis
Jakobian
Jakobian
14:52
@MartinR that question is pure gold. LOL. From DesmosTutu spamming unrelated links, to Lucky Chouhan asking him for personal information, all up to mick appearing to answer him
 
4 hours later…
Jakobian
Jakobian
19:10
PSQ
Jakobian
Jakobian
19:42
I feel like maybe this question didn't deserve to be closed
there is some attempt by OP that I can barely make sense of, but its there
its a duplicate of this question that wasn't closed
even though the latter does lack serious details
@XanderHenderson what do you think?
I'm thinking, re-open the first one and close the latter
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
I don't think that either is a very good question for the format, and have no problem with either being closed.
Jakobian
Jakobian
I see. Yeah we could do that
just close both of them
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
But you should also keep in mind that my opinion is only one person's opinion.

« first day (4428 days earlier)      last day (366 days later) »