Oh.

@Srivatsan - May be they are same sex that live together, don't give him a hard time or try to offense him

Um, I actually imagined analysts will be category 3 and set theorists in cateory 1. =)

@Victor When did I ask anything about the sex of either him or his partner? I was merely asking if it is "keeping the lights on" that will upset the partner.

@Srivatsan So far I only met two guys in set theory of the first category. The first is one of my teachers, the second finished this M.Sc. and switched to computer science. Most of set theorists I have met are of the second and third kinds.

Hi Bobby J.

Hm, I know zero set theorists apart from you, so I must naturally defer to your judgement. =)

@Srivatsan I know slightly more ;-)

I think that I am an exception in "how type three" I am. I can really see the big picture. I see it very very good. I often understand how the detail work just by seeing the big picture so well that I can see portions of it to a very fine resolution. However I find it hard sometimes to even deal with "level two details" by hand.

Most of my exams, works, whatever have similar remarks - that I have a very impressive attitude to math, but I do badly handling the details.

What's a good attitude to math?

Creative, outside the box'ish, I usually get these remarks in algebra-related topics where I approach the problems with a "model theoretic breeze" so to say...

@Srivatsan Something like "F this sh"?

So it's time for you to draw a model theoretic box around yourself then =).

[Just kidding. Ignore these side comments.]

@Srivatsan Point is that I never studied further than "classical" model theory, so it's not an actual model theoretic approach too...

@Srivatsan - To trick other people, especially make it so complicted that most mathmatician could'nt know what it is

@AsafKaragila Hm, ok.

@Victor I don't see how it is a good approach to anything

@Victor Sorry?

Either way, I hope I could sneak my way into academy by collaborations with people that are better on detail handling :-)

Ok.

Or, you know, learn how to handle the details myself :-D

I love details.

Why is Bobby J silent? =)

Because now we can say he is J, Silent Bob.

Either way, my point is that I am going to bed now. If by the time I wake up the dark lords of chaos has taken over the universe and wreaked havoc and pestilence across the land - let me know.

@AsafKaragila See you, Asaf.

Btw your answer was excellent, @robjohn.

Has anyone else noticed an onslaught of necro-editing on MSE by a certain user?

@TheChaz I think you can be open about which user?

me? MaX? tb? =)

MaX

tb? =)

Perhaps you could first post a comment requesting them to stop?

Emphasis on MINOR edits, and OLD (sufficiently voted on, answered, and accepted to boot)

A comment might work...

@TheChaz Or it might not =), in which case you are very well justified in moving it to meta.

That you knew who it was gives me more confidence in such a meta thread. Ok. Thanks

@TheChaz Yes, I noticed it too.

Btw, in case, you (or anyone else here) feels that I am causing too many tag edits, please feel free to warn me.

[Feedback is good to keep the rate of such edits under control.]

I agree with the tagging, as the definitions change (or become deprecated).

But adding "\limits" to integrals ("\int")...

That's petty

@TheChaz Do you remember which post this is?

It's active. I just rolled it back

f(x + 1) = f(x) + 1 ...

@TheChaz But rolling back isn't going to do any good, is it?

Sorry I'm mobile or I'd be handy with the links

I just realized that! Now it looks like i necro-Ed it!

No problem, I think I figured out the post.

But I agree that \int should NOT have \limits. That's just ugly usually.

It's this post: math.stackexchange.com/questions/86250/….

But Nov 28 isn't that old, no?

Many edits like "12345" changed to "$12345$"

Indeed, not old. But I assumed the course of action was the same (cont)

1) New question is closed as dupe

2) original question (with new dupe) is edited by MaX, regardless of age.

@TheChaz Ok. Indeed some old posts were dug out, if I remember right.

So that the original is (only) a week old is an anomaly!

I see. =)

I understand your point. It might just be that MaX is under the impression he is helping the site (and in one sense, he is). May be you could point out that he is also reviving old ghosts...

Maybe I'll just direct him to this chat date/time

And what we can do about this afterwards depends entirely on his reaction.

I might be the least diplomatic person around... Actually, I have been reading about edit wars on meta and I feel much better about my personality problems!

I'll see about a good way to approach this.

@TheChaz Fair enough, you can direct him here. At least you have an implicit support now =).

Thanks! Now I must charge my phone battery.

Sure, see you @TheChaz.

@Srivatsan You speaking of the $\sqrt{n}$ problem? Thanks. However, it was more than what was needed. Your answer was simpler and answered the question asked.

No, not that. The Riemann-Lebesgue one.

[Although we did discuss the idea yesterday...]