« first day (4585 days earlier)      last day (205 days later) » 

Feeds
Feeds
06:20
0
A: Requests for Reopen & Undeletion Votes (volume 01/2022 - today)

Pantheraplease consider reopening my question. I'm not entirely sure why it was closed in the first place but it was closed for "needing more details or clarity", yet I believe I added all the details needed. My question even got a reply while it was open and they helped me find the answer as well as con...

 
5 hours later…
Soumik Mukherjee
Soumik Mukherjee
10:53
This feels too elementary to not be a dupe but I can't find any
 
3 hours later…
SmokeDetector
SmokeDetector
13:40
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Several emoji in title (85): "show that if ∧ is consistent and ◇ α∈∧ then □ ‾ (∧) ⊆ { α } is consistent." ✏️‭ by 胡世焜‭ on math.SE
 
1 hour later…
rschwieb
rschwieb
14:54
picture PSQ: math.stackexchange.com/q/4953287/29335
Mittens
Mittens
15:44
D This is an incorrect answer. Please consider deleting it.
 
3 hours later…
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
19:07
Dv/D PSQ & dupe of huge FAQ, with dupe answers by many experienced users
amWhy
amWhy
19:53
One more close vote, and one more downvote needed to initiate delete votes on this PSQ
@BillDubuque So incredibly sad that new and old users flood to answer PSQs, these days. Some of us need to get more active in trying mod flags, appealing to quality standards, per the meta post Xander posted in 2020. See my comment after yours.
@Mittens cc @Xander Please focus your reviewing efforts on posts made after 2020. It seems your focus has largely been on posts made far earlier, when site quality standard were far different.
Please vote to delete
Jakobian
Jakobian
@amWhy I don't see how the time matters in this particular case. If the deciding factor is that answer is objectively incorrect, then it shouldn't matter. The problem seems to be that there doesn't seem to be any justification for deleting answers which are merely incorrect.
Some discussion here on this topic
amWhy
amWhy
20:10
@Jakobian It does matter, because policies changed in 2020. And an answer "being incorrect" should motivate comments, but is not itself a justification for deletion. CC: @Xander. Please get a grip on the site: meta, or confer with actual moderators in the mod chat, or
Jakobian
Jakobian
This topic seems to be even more accurate
There seem to be some mixed opinions on whether wrong answers should be deleted or not
amWhy
amWhy
mathmeta chat. The point I'm making is that the focus needs to be on recent, and other posts after summer 2020. Believe me, there's plenty to review during that time, and more recently. I've brought attention to more than a few, users, along with you, aiming your reviews at the first five years of this site, rather than posts more recently, violating almost five years of stricter policies. And I'm not done on this issue.
Jakobian
Jakobian
I agree that the consensus on old questions is different than that on recent questions. But I don't know if the same is true for answers, and I couldn't find anything on the topic
amWhy
amWhy
Targeting particular answerers (or any user in general), has never been tolerated on math.se or anywhere else on the SE network. I'm not saying this applies to you, in any way, at all. Please confer with a moderator, to better understand, rather than guessing.
Jakobian
Jakobian
Huh?
amWhy
amWhy
20:25
Starting in the summer of 2020, Enforcement of Quality Standards, applies both to question, when very poor, problem statement questions, and to those who answer them. This was not the case prior to 2020.
@Jakobian As I said, regarding targeting, I've never considered you anywhere near acting in bad faith. So again, it's not about you in any way.
Jakobian
Jakobian
What targetting? I don't believe I mentioned anything about that topic
Noah Schweber
Noah Schweber
FYI I've just reopened math.stackexchange.com/questions/4952882 (having answered it); the dupe target selected was not in fact a duplicate of the question, nor does the answer to the target address the original question (the one sentence of the answer relating to the proof of the diagonal lemma is "It turns out that if you calculate the number of this formula, you get exactly the number you get by starting with the number 𝑘 and performing the operations described by the statement"
which is true but doesn't explain the diagonal lemma at all). To be clear I would not be surprised if this is a dupe after all, I just can't find a duplicate. I'm posting here since I didn't realize my reopen vote would unilaterally reopen it.
amWhy
amWhy
@Jakobian You hadn't, and I never thought you did. This is not directed at you in any way, shape or form.
@NoahSchweber Of course you would, given you answered it. But I'm not objecting to the reopening.
Jakobian
Jakobian
@amWhy why mention it in the first place
Noah Schweber
Noah Schweber
20:47
@amWhy Notice that I explicitly mentioned that I'd answered it in my comment here, and explained why I reopened it at the post itself as well. What would you have preferred I do?
amWhy
amWhy
21:27
@NoahSchweber I missed that. But as I said, I did not, nor would have objected to your action, either way.
@NoahSchweber You're right, that there was no need for me to mention "that", but I did want to let you know that your action, to me, is entirely understandable. Indeed, for the most part, I've found your interactions on this site to be entirely reasonable. Cheers!
@Jakobian Because it is happening of late, and it's worth posting here, to a few long-standing members. The only reason I said "it doesn't apply to you", was because what I stated, was meant to simply share to Cured, then I wanted to make sure you understand, my comment was not to you. I do express myself here, and it's rarely about you. I added the last part, so you would realize that comment was not aimed at you. Please chill.
Jakobian
Jakobian
21:56
Why are you assuming that I'm angry?
It was out of place, that's all
Now to say it was about all people in this chatroom, it doesn't seem that way, since it was directed to me, clearly
> Please confer with a moderator, to better understand, rather than guessing.
this part in particular seems to give strong indication that you are talking to me
Feeds
Feeds
-3
Q: Another claim (this one from 2019, but recently gaining attention) of a Riemann Hypothesis proof. Has anyone gone through and noticed the flaw(s)?

Simon MI do believe that I have a concrete and focused question here: Question What are some examples of flaws in the paper? Here is the paper by Surajit Ghosh from 2019, who has a YouTube channel by the same name, if anyone wants to skim through what Ghosh says about the paper on the YouTube channel. ...

soft-question riemann-hypothesis
Тyma Gaidash
Тyma Gaidash
22:35
@amWhy What situations do you mean when “trying mod flags”?
amWhy
amWhy
@ТymaGaidash I mentioned that in a different comment. I was referring to using a flag "for moderator attention" in cases where posts (specifically answers after summer 2020), in which one can an answer to very-low-quality posts, clicking on the option "needs (for) moderator attention, citing "Enforcement of Quality Standards", aka EOQS.
@Tyma, @Jakobian (in reference to my earlier posts) please see the meta post, authored by @Xander (and sanctioned by the entire mod team in 2021) Enforcement of Quality Standards.
That standards to not apply prior to 2020.
Typically, moderators will not apply sanctions on a very occasional answer to a low-quality post, but they do take notice to "a pattern" a user answering "many" very-low-quality questions or problem-statement-questions (aka PSQ's)
@Tyma I hope that helps! :-)
Тyma Gaidash
Тyma Gaidash
22:55
@amWhy Now it is understood. Thanks for the information.

« first day (4585 days earlier)      last day (205 days later) »