Looking at the above messages, if you post stuff like this into c.r.u.d.e (or both here and in crude), than that room will have more messages and also bigger chance of getting noticed by other users.
I have at least edited links to WA (showing said graphs) into that answer. I'm not sure whether it is enough of an improvement.
Personally I don't think that the answer of the type: "Look at the graph, then you can immediately see that ..." is terrible answer for this question. OTOH I agree that the graph can be drawn by hand - without using CAS. And also that if the answer relies on the graph, it would probably be nice to include it.
@SimplyBeautifulArt @amWhy Sad sad Alex M. got there first before me. =P
@MartinSleziak In my opinion (which may not be shared by others), graph[ic]s can never be part of a rigorous proof. They can and should be employed whenever suitable to aid intuition, but ultimately drawing any sort of conclusion from a graph is misleading and further enforces students' misconception of mathematics as magic handwaving.
Also, using WA makes it doubly as bad, because WA often gives the Wrong Answer, due to the programmers not being mathematical trained. I have historical evidence but they actually watch Math SE and use a whack-a-mole strategy to prevent the counter-examples mentioned from causing WA to lose face. Their strategy is often to hard-code those counter-examples in, so with just a bit of ingenuity one can make infinitely more counter-examples.
But I wish to emphasize that these are my personal opinions. Anyway I didn't get the opportunity to vote to delete that post.
@MartinSleziak Hello! Well not quite, because I meant that they should be clearly indicated to be not part of a proof of any sort, then it is beneficial, otherwise it is (in my opinion) harmful to include it.
BTW sorry for the intrusion in this room, but the comments seemed related to c.r.u.d.e and since amWhy says she would maybe prefer to do this in that room for sake of transparency, this seemed like a natural place where to look for people who might be interested in that room.
Is "Hello!" there meant as a sign of surprise? Wiktionary: hello. It seems that my participation on this site suffers a lot from the fact that my English is not very good.
Wiktionary mentions: "4. (colloquial) Used sarcastically to imply that the person addressed or referred to has done something the speaker or writer considers to be foolish." and also "5. (chiefly Britain) An expression of puzzlement or discovery."
Oh no it was because I responded to your messages before I saw you enter this room.
I greeted you when you entered.
It's true that one could employ a certain particular tone to make "Hello!" sarcastic, but that's not frequent and anyway tones don't carry over internet.
Anyway, the answer is deleted, I guess nobody planes to make edits/improvements, so probably not much sense in discussing this specific answer at long.
So in this particular case you could say (with a bit of stretch) that c.r.u.d.e worked :-)
But without posting some messages in that room, it's very unlikely that it will attract some visitors. Which I mentioned both in crude and in this room.
:O Timelines. Never seen 'em before @MartinSleziak
@user21820 Funny WA's initials work perfectly for "wrong answer"
@MartinSleziak sure then
@MartinSleziak Its only intrusion if you don't enter in filled with boredom. As you can probably see by the newest starred message and new room description, you must be bored to participate in here :) (sarcasm, don't worry about it)
@user21820 Once they leave, they stop showing up in the @ list
@SimplyBeautifulArt That's actually not true. People who are not currently in the room, but was here not too long ago still are pingable and appear in autocomplete. "Not too long" is probably a week, see this comment.
@SimplyBeautifulArt Timeline is quite useful if you want to check whether the post already went through a review. Meta: How to see questions time line?
For example close, reopen, low quality review.
To get back to being "pingable", you can check that aminliverpool is still offered in auto-complete, despite the fact that they are not currently in the room.
@user21820 Ok so this is what exactly the meta.SE answer says: "If I recall correctly, you can be @pinged for a week since your last visit to the room (even if you're not currently present among the room visitors), supposing that you ever posted in that room."
So that answer mentions that you should have also posted in that room.
If you feel like testing it, you can try to enter some room where you never posted a message and I'll check whether your name is still offered after you leave. For example, I think you never posted anything in Discussing Specific Topics (one of aminliverpool's rooms).
An older answer does not mention the need for posting a message: "You can @displayname someone if they've been in a room sometime in the last two days (even if they're not currently in there)"
I assume the limit was raised from two days to a week at some point.
No it's not. I have also been in M.G. room for some 10 minutes without saying anything. So if somebody wants, you can test whether I am pingable there.
But from your experiment with the above room it seems that it's necessary that a user post message at least once.
@SimplyBeautifulArt I've voted to close. Also have you seen my comments in the CRUDE room? It's up to you and @amWhy whether you want to act on those bad posts now or wait to see whether visitors to that room will actually help out.
This is the Realm of Simply Beautiful…
This is the Realm of Simply Beautiful…