4:34 AM
@LeakyNun @amWhy: What do you do when someone repeatedly asks for your opinion and then says you are wrong or tells you to shut up when you give it honestly?

I stay calm and play his game =p

Lol.
Even when it is harmful to others to do so?
In most cases, it can be safely ignored.

to whom?

Hmmm...

@user21820 what is your opinion on my suggestion?

4:39 AM
I think your suggestion is perfectly good when the questions are about harmless stuff.

is that honest?

I don't get your last question.

you’re wrong, shut up

You're obviously trying to be funny.
But I'm seriously asking you how you think it should be handled for serious cases.

:p
eh well, leave it to the mods

4:40 AM
That's one way I guess.
But it's one step removed from the problem.

and it’s not your problem anymore

Namely... X is harmful to others, and I have evidence. Y keeps asking for my opinion about X. So Y is not morally wrong, nor wrong according to site standards.
But so downright irritating.
X is a problem for the mods to handle. But what about Y?
@LeakyNun: (This is why I haven't yet looked carefully at your argument. I'm pondering this issue that is more important to me right now.)

just ignore Y

I need to do some stuff now; will be back later.
@LeakyNun Okay. Will look at your proof afterwards.
@LeakyNun: By the way, it's to the extent that X incites violence! That's what made me angry.
Sorry, X not Y.

I can’t people

user131753
4:54 AM
In which case tell Y about the violence that X incited and then tell him/her to form his own opinion about X and also that it would be better not to ask you about X in future.

@user170039 But I'm not sure whether Y even cares about whether people incite violence or not. And I don't want to argue with Y about X.
@LeakyNun I have no trouble with people in real life. Online communities are a bit of a headache.

Morning to all:3

@YokaiTheMonster: Good morning to you too!

Thank you brother :)

Though we're probably all in different time zones. =)

4:58 AM
ha ha yeah from where?
i'm from india :)

user131753
@user21820 Don't argue if it's pointless. Just tell your situation explicitly. If the problem persists then warn the person that if Y persists then you will be forced to involve a moderator about this issue. See if that works.

@YokaiTheMonster I see. I like to keep my anonymity online though heh.

ok ok
:)

@user170039 Well I'm not arguing that it is pointless. I just don't know whether it's of any use to tell Y about it. If you noticed I already told the moderators about X, so that should be handled appropriately.
The main complication is that Y seems to like X, so if I say anything it may be seen as an attempt to drive a wedge between them.

user131753
@user21820 Have you tried telling Y about it?

5:02 AM
@user170039 Of course not yet; I'm asking here whether it is a good idea.
This is not a logic thing; I can't deduce the right path.

user131753
@user21820 I think just give it a try. If that not works then you can switch to more extreme measures (like ignoring Y).

@user170039 Would you like to see the evidence? To judge whether trying is worth the trouble?
@YokaiTheMonster: Sorry you happened to drop in on an unusual discussion; usually we joke around here rather than discuss serious things.

user131753
@user21820 Sure.

> According to Russell's view, the 1962 war was a war of prestige. China's conduct was honourable before, during and after the war, and China aimed for prestige not territory. The consequence of China's behaviour in 1962 is that, in 2017, China can do whatever it likes to India with an absolutely clear conscience. – George Chen Dec 13 at 22:37
> In other words, China in 1962 tried to be as sportsmanlike as possible, and Pakistan's help would have produced the opposite effect. If India came to its senses and remained peaceful, India still deserved respect. Unfortunately, after its nuclear tests, India finally squandered all of China's goodwill. Now you can pan-fry, deep-fry, stir-fry India in its own grease with an absolutely clear conscience. – George Chen Dec 13 at 23:03 (just after previous comment)
I expect that the moderators will handle it, so the comments may be gone soon. To preserve a record of it here I better quote it.
@user170039: Are these comments sufficiently clear that it is worth telling Y about it?

No worries dude @user21820

user131753
5:14 AM
@user21820 I agree that both the comments are extremely offensive (at least it sounds that way to me). So, in this case, it is better to let the site moderators (in this case this) to be aware of its problematic content.

@user170039 Thank you for your judgement. I hope it is also useful for the rest of us here to know about it because this same user is a semi-crank when it comes to mathematics (see his profile).
Now, let me get back to Logic and answer LeakyNun's question! =)

user131753
@user21820 Yes. It's weird. But I wouldn't call him a (semi-)crank unless I have really some evidence in his answers and question and not in his profile.

user131753
@user21820 Sure.

@user170039 A person is a whole. One has to evaluate a person as a whole to get a proper idea of who the person really is. A person may present a facade to some people and hide the real personality deep inside.
Sometimes, it leaks out in various places, and we get a clue, such as here.
I do not think that inciting violence is consistent with truth seeking. So they cannot coexist in the same sane person.
Anyway, as I said before, I don't want to talk about explicit people too much. That's why originally it was a hypothetical question. So let's leave it at that.
@LeakyNun: Did you manage to prove Desargue's theorem from the axioms for a general projective space?

user131753
5:33 AM
@user21820 No problem.

1:28 PM

this is gold

1 hour later…
2:33 PM

1 hour later…
3:56 PM
1

In the text "Function Theory of One Complex Variable Third Edition" by Robert E. Greene and Steven G. Krantz i'm having trouble understanding how the bounds were derived from the compact set $E_{r}$ and what their purpose are in $\text{Corollary 3.5.2}$, the initial proof to the Corollary is deve...

                   ^ Anybody care to answer