« first day (105 days earlier)      last day (326 days later) » 

Robert Z
Robert Z
6:25 AM
@Nyssa Could you please take a look at those deleted questions?
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2745598/how-to-find-the-integral-int-frac-dx-sin2-x-tan2x
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3114771/how-to-evaluate-the-limit-lim-x-to-pi-frac-cos-x-sin-2x1x2-pi2
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3313374/limit-of-the-quotient-of-exponentials
 
user
user
7:05 AM
@RobertZ To best manage the question to consider please use [name](link).
 
user
user
7:18 AM
Not sure it is a duplicate U84
Why delete this U91?
 
Robert Z
Robert Z
7:34 AM
@user Thanks. Next time I will consider the suggested form.
 
user
user
And also U92, why deletion?
@RobertZ Also it would be useful if you take in considerations the R/U issues for other questions and answers posted here. Thanks a lot. Regards
 
 
1 hour later…
Robert Z
Robert Z
8:52 AM
Please check:
[U1](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2411978/if-n-geq-2-and-m-are-natural-numbers-prove-that-left-fracn-sqrtn2-4)
[U2](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3119736/does-lim-limits-x-to-infty-fx-0)
[U3](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2981693/show-that-int-ab-left%cf%86nx-1-2-rightdx-rightarrow-0-as-n-rightar)
[U4](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2945440/number-of-ways-to-select-k-non-adjacent-boxes-in-a-2-times-n-board)
 
 
3 hours later…
Arnaud D.
Arnaud D.
12:00 PM
@user I voted to delete this because the only answer (yours) uses the Cauchy condensation test, and that argument is already covered in the duplicate (in Rene Schipperus' answer). So there's nothing new.
 
user
user
12:38 PM
@ArnaudD. Of course the subject is already covered maybe by more than one previuos answer but I think that the question is well formulated and doesn't deserve deletion.
 
 
2 hours later…
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
2:39 PM
@Jack Your tags here are inappropriate.
The question is not one of geometry (the geometry tag is clearly meant for more elementary topics), and is not about measure theory, nor the Hausdorff measure.
 
user12692
 
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
@XanderHenderson I guess hausdorff-dimension might be a reasonable tag there.
 
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
@MartinSleziak Agreed.
Since the asker is really asking about the similarity dimension, not the Hausdorff dimension (though they happen to agree in this case).
 
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
If the ROs prefer to have them elsewhere, the tag-related messages can be moved into tagging. (I suppose that the main purpose was to notify Jack, which was achieved.)
 
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
@Jack Your tags are inappropriate. Please stop editing the question to add inappropriate tags.
 
user12692
2:43 PM
Hausdorff dimension
In mathematics, Hausdorff dimension (a.k.a. fractal dimension) is a measure of roughness and/or chaos that was first introduced in 1918 by mathematician Felix Hausdorff. Applying the mathematical formula, the Hausdorff dimension of a single point is zero, of a line segment is 1, of a square is 2, and of a cube is 3. That is, for sets of points that define a smooth shape or a shape that has a small number of corners—the shapes of traditional geometry and science—the Hausdorff dimension is an integer agreeing with the usual sense of dimension, also known as the topological dimension. However, formulas...
 
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
The hausdorff dimension is not the same as the hausdorff measure.
 
user12692
@XanderHenderson Please check the title of the post. Also, there is no point to discuss anything BEFORE you vote to UNDELETE the post.
 
user12692
@XanderHenderson nobody said that they are the same. Please click the link and see what is there.
 
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
Jack, this is a field with which I have more than passing familiarity. The question is not asking about measure theory, nor about the Hausdorff measure. Your tags are inappropriate.
 
user12692
I will not fight with you about the tags any more. Obviously I have very different opinions from you regarding how to use tags. I will stop here. And folks could start voting to undelete the post.
 
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
2:51 PM
 
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
@Jack Why should the question be reopened? It was pointed out that the question was unclear, the asker made no effort to address the comments I left, and it was subsequently deleted.
The fact that Marc McClure provided an answer with a nice image is irrelevant.
If you think that the image is really that nice, post a new question which is clear, and which will encourage the posting of that image.
 
user12692
3:06 PM
@XanderHenderson I disagree with the deletion, period. As for the reopening business, it is very much clear to me what OP is asking. I'm not an idiot to say an answer is beautiful because of a nice image; but of course, there are cases that an image speaks much more than words, not this case though. It would be good in this particular case if you not close/delete the post but instead write your own response to the post.
 
user12692
Also, if you are not satisfied by the accepted answer under the post, you should talk to Mark McClure, who has no less expertise than you do: genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=10582
 
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
@Jack It is great that you are clear about the question. Oddly enough, I am not---is the asker talking about the solid flake or the boundary? Can you discern this from their question?
And I did write my own response. See the comment below the quesiton.
I asked for clarification.
The asker provided none.
 
user12692
For "response", I meant an "answer".
 
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
@Jack The question is unclear. Until it is clarified, posting an answer is an inappropriate action.
 
user12692
@XanderHenderson You are not going to ask the definition for the exponential function, logarithmic function, or the trig functions under very calculus or limit questions in the site because without properly defining these terms an answer could be very much different, are you? Mark gave an answer and OP accepted it.
 
user12692
3:20 PM
One can safely assume that Mark gave what OP is looking for and he knows what OP is talking about. If you read the question differently, you can certainly write an answer clarifying what your concerns are and how exactly you read the problem. That add a lot more to the site than the closing/deletion does in this case.
 
Mark McClure
Mark McClure
@Jack For the record, my impression is that the question is about the solid Koch snowflake. Clearly, the OP has some points of confusion as it appears that they looked up the dimension of just the boundary. But, then, confusion is often why folks are asking questions - right?
So, I'm certainly not in favor of deletion. I understand, though, that some folks have different criteria. I vote, but really don't care to argue the point these days. I think it's healthier just to let the votes fall where they may.
I do think that the fact that the solid Koch curve is self-similar is interesting and under-appreciated. I don't know of too many other posts on site where this is mentioned, though I did use that fact tangentially here. If the post is deleted and someone else asks a solid question concerning that, I'd be happy to answer.
Also, I think that @XanderHenderson is correct with regards to the tags.
 
user12692
@MarkMcClure "But, then, confusion is often why folks are asking questions - right?" This is very much true. Thank you for all your inputs.
 
user12692
@MarkMcClure That was how the site is supposed to work. Considering the almost daily deletion list the CRUDE room nowadays since sometime in 2018, it is rather unhealthy to lose posts in such "voting" way.
 
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
@Jack The core of the question involves a set which the asker calls "the" Koch snowflake.
However, they don't define what they mean by that (the solid snowflake, or the boundary).
I asked for clarification, and the asker ignored my request.
As such, I voted to close the question as "unclear".
The question was put on hold, and still no clarification was offered.
Hence deletion is entirely reasonable.
 
user12692
3:36 PM
@XanderHenderson Confusing users may not have the ability to reply to your question; and they have much less motivation especially when someone posted what they are looking for.
 
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
@Jack They made no attempt to reply.
 
user12692
 
Nyssa
Nyssa
5:48 PM
@Jack I have edited a little the question, let me know if anything is messed up.
 
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
@Nyssa Frankly, I think that edit makes the question less clear---the term "fractal dimension" is not well defined, and could refer to one of many notions of dimension. The reference to the Hausdorff dimension in the title is clarifying.
I also think that $\log(4)/\log(3)$ is more readable than $\frac{\log(4)}{\log(3)}$, but that is a minor issue.
That being said, I still don't think that my concerns have been addressed.
What set is being considered here? Which six pieces form that set?
 
Nyssa
Nyssa
@RobertZ Those are undeleted now. I was hesitant with the first one since I believe I must have encountered it before and it's a dupe, however I couldn't find any. I've tried to improve it, let me know if it's not okay though.
@RobertZ after the "enter" key was pressed once []() won't work.
Regarding U4 from there, there is a non-answer now there that I think can be deleted (flagging might help).
@XanderHenderson I've rolled back the title. However I don't think I can do anything furthermore to improve it.
 
user
user
6:55 PM
Why delete this one U93? And also the alleged duplicate question was not better as quality than this. I've reopened this. Maybe there is a better duplicate to merge both questions with?
 
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
7:41 PM
@user I don't see anything in the question you linked which is not already said here. I don't think that either question is very good (in the newer, deleted question, the notation $\approx$ is not well-defined, so how does one "prove" anything about it?
The older question is, I think, more clear, but is hampered by the use of equality.
That is, "$\ln(1+x)=x$" is a little bit of nonsense (unless one is trying to solve that equation); the question should really ask about "$\ln(1+x)\approx x$". I am tempted to edit the question to make this point, but not before checking to see if that would invalidate any of the answers.
Nope... the edit would invalidated the accepted answer.
 
user
user
7:57 PM
@XanderHenderson I agree that the $\approx$ notation is not the best choice in this context but it is used sometime (e.g. here therefore I don't think that this minor issue can invalidate the question or justify its deletion. The alleged duplicate really appear worse to me.
 
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
@user The $\approx$ notation would have been the right notation for the original question; the question there is about what it means for something to be "equal to" something else for "small $x$" (my goto example is the so-called "small angle approximation" in physics).
The newer, deleted question seems to be asking for something stronger, i.e. an analytic "proof" that $\log(1+x) \approx x$", but for that to make sense, one first has to explain what is meant by $\approx$. The answers to the older question make this clear, then provide the proof.
The answers to the newer question seem to add nothing new.
 
user
user
@XanderHenderson I don't agree with your interpretation. Anyway, thanks for the explanation and to to have shared it.
 
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
@user It is fine to disagree, though if you are going to disagree, it would be nice if you could actually explain what properties you think the deleted question has which are not shared by this question.
I willing to be convinced.
 
user
user
8:17 PM
@XanderHenderson As I already said, the old question is not better in quality that the new moreover I think that also the new answers provided are good and valuable.
 
Xander Henderson
Xander Henderson
@user Okay... fine... let's say that I agree with you on that point. You still haven't addressed my question: what is said in the deleted thread which is not already covered in the older thread?
 
user
user
@XanderHenderson The key points are of course covered but almost all new answers add something. new. Anyway, really I do not pretend to reach an agreement with you on that but I appreciate to know you point of view.
 
user
user
9:01 PM
For U94 I can agree with closure as duplicate (even if currently it is linked to a second duplicate) but I don't think it deserves deletion.
 

« first day (105 days earlier)      last day (326 days later) »