@user21820 The linked article has an error in that it says the set of naturals is the same size as the set of evens. One is a PROPER SUPERSET of the other and therefore unambiguously larger. What it should be saying is that the "cardinality" measure fails to capture this fact since it projects the identity relation down to the weaker bijection relation. I think bad teaching like this is responsible for slow uptake of the diagonal argument.

@AloizioMacedo A problem with diverting users to CRUDE to handle controversial reopening, I think is that the users of CRUDE would prefer for it to stay under the radar to some degree so they can act with relative impunity. And I think that is not necessarily a bad thing since the aims of the room are good.

If all disgruntled posters of bad/unwanted questions deluged CRUDE with their requests & complaints, its action might be somewhat diluted.

@ProducerofBS It is possible that I remember it incorrectly, but AFAICT the reason that when some of the users you can see most frequently in CRUDE started the renewed activity in the room, one of the factors was that in this way their actions have more transparency and are not hidden from other users. I've mentioned something about this here: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/64952/2018/4/30

@MartinSleziak I agree it's transparent but it also falls below the radar to some degree and I doubt its users would support; nor would it probably serve the site, if users were notified upon closure or deletion of their question with an invitation to visit CRUDE to debate the matter.

Here is a comment related to this rooms' entry in the list of chatrooms:

@ProducerofBS I don't think anybody suggested here that every closure should be accompanied by a comment inviting the user to CRUDE.

I should also add that the phrase "users of this room" is a little vague. Everybody is allowed to use the room (for the purposes for which it was created).

@ProducerofBS "The linked article has an error in that it says the set of natural [number]s is the same size as the set of even [natural number]s." No error there. Anyway, you would be better off sticking strictly to the room's purpose ("For feedback/discussion/requests of Close/Reopen/Undelete/Delete/Edit for questions and answers on Math SE").

@Did that depends how precisely you define the "size of a set", which you seem to be doing using the notion of cardinality, making your argument tautological. But coming back to CRUDE, the point relates to closure/deletion of the discussed question. That question wouldn't keep coming back if the site contained material that satisfactorily addressed the root cause of the asker's dissatisfaction with the idea of cardinality.

There's a lot right with the notion of cardinality but it took me a long time to work out for myself what its shortcomings were, because the site's short of that material.

@MartinSleziak I think we're in danger of violently agreeing with each other. I agree it's transparent and rightly so, and I never questioned everybody is allowed to use it. But it is not advertised very proactively. For "its users" I mean the cabal of daily multiple-posters who work tirelessly to maintain standards.

Saying that something has an error when it does not is bad teaching. Cantor-deniers keep coming back only because of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Anyway my link to that article is for comparison to explain why I did not consider the mentioned post to be unsalvageable. That article's content is off-topic here.

@user170039 I see a few comments by amWhy on this post: Let's have an explicit triage system for questions from new users, So that would be my guess.

@MartinSleziak Yes Martin. Thanks for stepping in with the link.

Maybe it might be useful to make a post on our local meta along the lines of: "What are triage and Help and Improvement review queues?"

I imagine a question asking mainly for some basic explanation of the functionality. Perhaps additionally about previous discussions on attempts to introduce this on sites other than SO and about possible obstacles.

Triage was recently mentioned in some posts on meta. Probably most explicitly in mixedmath's answer to Three levels of Math.

@amWhy recently mentioned some inquiries on Meta Stack Exchange. And triage has been mentioned several times in chat.

If there is going a serious discussion about introducing it here, it might be useful to have a post with explanation of what it is.

And probably it might be useful to have such post on our local meta - even if some explanations exist on Meta Stack Exchange. (I suppose many of users of this site read only our local meta. If they have additional questions, they might prefer to ask here. And additionally, maybe even if somebody familiar with triage and help/improvement gives some explanation, they might have different perspective from the explanations when they were being introduced.)

@user21820 Agreed on your first point but their repeatedly coming back has to be seen as a failing of the site to teach them; and I've frequently seen that have more to do with the Reverse Dunning Kruger effect than the Dunning Kruger effect, with the perpetrator oblivious to that fact.

The site is not a substitute for a teacher. And I'm going to move this conversation elsewhere.

← 11 messages moved from CRUDE