« first day (4791 days earlier)    last day (1 day later) » 

02:38
21 messages moved to ­Trash
Would you please not delete this messages from Smokey?
They are helpful for moderation.
I saw the relevant accounts are destroyed, so moved the messages. Is that OK?
03:10
Even if they have provided additional context necessary for whatever they are asking for.
classic.
03:35
@Ѕᴀᴀᴅ please do not. Best to leave the record here.
04:02
@XanderHenderson OK then.
 
11 hours later…
15:12
-1
Q: Observations on Collatz Conjecture: Step Patterns and Potential Counterexamples

I WISHsay k is odd and has finite number of steps before reaching 1 say x then the number of steps for 4k + 1 is x + 2 and numbers of the form $(2^{6k} -1) / 3$ do not follow anybody any idea

16:00
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Manually reported question (93): Take some pencils‭ by Brave‭ on math.SE
16:41
0
Q: Syracuse sequences - stopping time counting function

Lionel1958I’m just finishing up a paper on the stopping time properties of Syracuse sequences, and I’m looking for readers to review my work and provide feedback.

 
3 hours later…
19:49
@Jakobian From looking at the timeline, when you answered, the question was quite bare-bones - it was the statement of the question and then a very very quick thought (1 sentence, 11 words) from the OP. This is exceptionally low context for a problem, and my guess is that those who have voted took this in to account. I would recommend working with the OP to get the question in to an acceptable state for MSE before answering in the future.
 
3 hours later…
22:58
@KReiser What happened to "be nice to new users"?
after this I'm sure the OP will never come back to the site
well anyway I don't want to argue. Even though I just did...
23:11
@Jakobian What does this have to do with "being nice"?
0
Q: Is this "easier" Collatz conjecture (in particular, it is the Collatz conjecture but with an additional rule) provable?

Adam Rubinsonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collatz_conjecture Consider the same rules as the Collatz conjecture, but with the additional rule that if a number is divisible by $5,$ then we are allowed to divide it by $5.$ If the number is divisible by $2$ a and $5$ i.e. divisible by $10,$ then we may choose to...

All posts on the site are expected to meet a certain standard. Posts that don't meet that standard are likely to be downvoted, closed, and/or deleted. "Being nice" in this context means helping people to improve questions, I suppose.
And if you are complaining about the downvotes on your answer: the first paragraph is essentially a "link only" answer (Sierpinski says so), but without an actual link. The second paragraph is slightly better, but is still, essentially, "The Baire category theorem says so". And both are, it seems over the head of the original asker.
Not to mention that the question is, ultimately, a duplicate.
This one is related, though not quite the same: math.stackexchange.com/q/887560 .
And this one is basically the same question: math.stackexchange.com/q/3172190 .
Absent the fact that the question is a duplicate, I think that the final version of the question maybe just barely meets the standards of the site (though, obviously, there are others who disagree, and voted to delete it). As a duplicate, I am not too worried about it being deleted.

« first day (4791 days earlier)    last day (1 day later) »