Hopefully this is useful in the future, even though this particular linear algebra question is not as common as some more basic algebra questions like remainders and whatnot.
I cannot pretend that the motivation was not the immediate deletion of this post which in fact (inadvertently) contained the same proof I tried to salvage in the linked post above, but at least hopefully something good came out of it all...
^^^ actually, this user seems to be posting AI-generated answers - here's another one which contains pretty detectable nonsense. I would appreciate it if someone else versed in some of the other areas (not algebra/algebraic-geometry) that their answers appear in would give their opinion
The topic of odd perfect numbers likely needs no introduction.
Let $N$ be an odd perfect number given in the so-called Eulerian form $N = q^k n^2$ where $q$ is the special prime satisfying $q \equiv k \equiv 1 \pmod 4$ and $\gcd(q,n)=1$.
It is known that $n^2 - q^k$ is not a square. (Note that $...
@Pedro We would not have to do that if there were not a fatal mechanism destroying this site : 1. A poor quality question is posted 2. The question is upvoted unjustified 3. This attract users to answer them (whether they meet the quality standards of the site or not) 4. The answers are upvoted. There are reasons we do not want this. This site should neither be a "do my homework" site nor a possibility to cheat in exams. I am surprised however about your question since you should know all this.
My point is that closing requires a valid reason. You seem to be instructing people to close the question and expecting them to follow suit (it seems they did, giving the close count) without a valid reason. You also do not seem at all interested in helping the OP in improving the question to suit the site better.
Homework / exam is however not the only case when a closure is justified. Lacking context is another one. So, I do not understand what you mean with "without a valid reason". Note that the question can be reopened after it was improved.
Your protest to the upvoting suggests a misunderstanding of what people value in a question. This is subjective but you seem to have too much of a rigid opinion of what makes a good question. This is bound to get us to situations like this. I do not think the attitude you are taking (for example, not even acknowledging that the poster is new to the site and trying to help) is useful.
Just my two cents on the Gaussian prime question. Closure due to lack of context seems appropriate here. However the comment by Pedro on that question seems more constructive as compared to Peter's (I think that comment was in response to Mariano's observation. Having said all that I have closed the question for now.
I expect it to be reopened after improvement. Needless to say the topic of question is deeply interesting for someone beginning their study of algebraic number theory
Time and again this should be mentioned that closure is not end of road, but just a pointer which signifies the need for improvement. So no hard feelings if some question is closed.
@ParamanandSingh Indeed! And far too often, deletion is suggested almost immediately after closure. That only happens on highly downvoted questions, but sometimes initiated even when after closure, the question has no answers.
I sort of wish the network still described initial closure as "on-hold". It would be interesting to know if doing so helped improve the rate of subsequent edits to questions.
@ParamanandSingh I saw that; I am hoping someone is motivated to actually add more context, before reopening. The reopen-vote struck me as sort of like some reflex.
@Peter Please, justify your comment. You mentioned duplicates, but I can't see the following for sure: "Does this answer your question?"$«\cdots»$ Well, your comment doesn't provide a helpful hint for OP as to what to do about it. Also, your comment does not contain a duplicate link. It also does not refer to the mathematical content of the question. It seems, it is almost impossible to determine what kind of contribution your comment has made to the site. — lone student3 hours ago
^^ @lonestudent You also posted a comment only to shame another user for not keeping their comment on the topic of the question asked, which had nothing to do with the questions. Your comment made no contribution to the question; and your comment's sole purpose was to shame another person for doing essentially what you yourself did. "Two wrongs do not make a right". I have flagged both your comment and Peter's as "no longer needed".
@amWhy Why is that? Your misjudgment is not my opinion. It is your own ideas. I didn't comment on the text of the question, because @Pedro said the main ones. I think I don't need to repeat them to earn your admiration. Technically, my comment is valid. My suggestion would be: If the above comment was deleted, and I still hadn't deleted my comment then you would be right. Otherwise, you are not right.
@lonestudent That's essentially what should happen. And your comment contained your ideas, best not expressed there. I appreciate Pedro's comments here. Note he did not call out a user in comments meant for clarification and feedback regarding the question. Only you did that. Nor did you appropriately post in chat, instead of spewing your opinion, your own ideas. Note that Pedro was on point, concise, constructive. Yours in not. Just as Peter does not represent, in his voice only, CURED,
Side note: I removed my comment. If this solves the problem, I'd be happy. I have observed that you direct the stars as you wish. This doesn't feel right to me and I can't continue here anymore. Thank you.
@lonestudent I appreciate that. And please do continue here. We need many voices here; it helps all keep honest. And I was merely being honest with you, about the tone of your comment. That has no bearing on my respect for you. I'm just hoping we can all, no matter our preferences, can aim for that. Please note that I've flagged the comment you objected to on main. I hope you have flagged, as well. The more flags, the more likely action is taken. Thanks for discussing this with me!
I do respect you, and Pedro's words here. I agree with Paramanand that Pedro spoke constructively. And I think it made a difference here.
@lonestudent I try to keep this site not cluttered with long lists of comments that are no longer relevant. Partly, because my screen is 14 inch diagonal, and one can only access three or four at a time. Perhaps I can keep each days comment star each day, and then delete most the next day. But stars are not intended to be "like" votes, or some popularity contest.
Keep visiting here, @lonestudent. Thanks for replying to my post here!
My comment kept getting +1 fast and getting to the top. However, I did not allow this and immediately removed the comment, doing as you requested. By the way, if you had asked me to delete my comment, I would have deleted it again. I really would have deleted it and indeed, I deleted it, without the need for a moderator. However, the above comment still stands. ( It can be flagged as "no longer needed" with your offer).
@lonestudent If the situation happens again I will speak with you prior to flagging. Note: the comment you objected to is now gone. Flags can be hugely effective, especially when handled relatively promptly. Sometimes several flags from community members are sufficient; with others which re
In Syracuse_function one of the described properties is this:
$f^{p-1}(2^p \cdot h-1)=2 \cdot 3^{p-1}\cdot h -1 \quad$ with $\quad h$ odd.
But if we consider $h=2\cdot k+1$ we have $f^{p-1}(2^{p+1} \cdot k+2^p-1)=2 \cdot 3^{p -1}\cdot (2\cdot k+1) -1$
so for $n=2^{p+1} \cdot k+2^p-1$ we have $f^{...
@Gokuカカロット please explain what is wrong, instead of stating judgements, like "negative effort", "nonsensical". Such comments do not convey information to anyone.
@Seeker You share my interest in Philosophy. maybe just a little. Think about participating here, on our site, but I know we all have time limits! I like your name. I used to have (not here) a username "Truth Seeker". So, again, I like your username.
@amWhy Thanks for your comment on my username. I do indeed like philosophy a lot. But I don’t think it would be a good idea for me to participate in CURED as I am against a lot(not all) of the closures and deletions that the users of this chat room take part in. It won’t be beneficial for my own mental health to keep arguing here. But I would like to participate in other chat rooms. Currently I’m on a trip so I won’t be participating much. But once I get back, I might start participating more.