Hello

my avatar appears to have vanished

i believe the site is either experiencing technical difficulties or my account is compromised. Please look into this.

@TheGreatDuck seems like there is a problem with imgur, the image hosting service used by SE.

Some images on the sites do not show either.

@quid it's back. Thanks

@arjafi IIRC you have introduced cantor-set tag. Do you think it should also be used for Cantor cubes? chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/3740/2016/10/28

And since I mention tags in mods' office, at least some of these cannot be resolved without help of moderators:

@MartinSleziak I don't think I was the one to create that tag, and the SEDE agrees with me. (The tag wiki doesn't seem like something I would write, and I tend to write tag wikis for the few tags I create.)

@arjafi Sorry for that, my memory fooled me. Still, since you have said some very reasonable things about tags in the past, if you have some opinion on this, I will be very glad if you say what you think in the tagging chatroom. (Even if the answer is simply: Go ahead and ask on meta.)

IMHO it seems like the tag was meant for the Cantor ternary set, and other closely related constructions of sets of reals. Adding Cantor cubes to this would necessitate an edit to the wiki/excerpt. But this might dilute the focus of the tag quite a bit. What's wrong with a cantor-cubes tag? It appears that some of the cantor-set questions would fit better there.

Go ahead and ask on meta.

@arjafi I think it is already being used for $2^\omega$ (in the sense of the power of discrete space) by some users.

So there are basically two questions: 1) Should we use it for both the Cantor set $C\subseteq[0,1]$ and the Cantor space $C=\{0,1\}^\omega$. 2) Should we also include higher powers $\{0,1\}^A$.

@MartinSleziak And those questions might fit better in a (cantor-cubes) tag.

@MartinSleziak I mean those are the decisions that need to be made. I'm not against keeping the focus of (cantor-set) specifically on sets of reals (in the usual mathematician sense) constructed in a Cantor-set-like manner. But then another tag might be needed for the more set-theoretic version(s).

But I don't feel too strongly one way or the other.

Thanks for the response. And I am not really sure why I thought you created the tag. (At least I hope I remember that you have created some tags of similar type - i.e., a tag for some specific space. Was is Sorgenfrey line?)

I think I am too young to be already that forgetful.

@MartinSleziak sorgenfrey-line and the-baire-space. The latter being much closer to the Cantor set.

@MartinSleziak Maybe you're forgetting how old you are!

@MartinSleziak FYI: Asaf wanted to possibly get rid of this tag about a year-and-a-half ago.

Yes, I know. But if you look at the comments, several users expressed opinion that such tag might be useful.

I'd say that seeing such post from Asaf is not unexpected:

Ok, I have made a question on meta, we will see whether some users will chime in: How should questions about Cantor space and Cantor cubes be tagged?

Any attending diamond-bearer care to answer my question regarding who, exactly, has access to deleted comments, indirectly or directly. I know that moderators (of the type diamond) can see them, and I've learned that any moderator (of the type diamond), regardless of the SE site she is moderating, has the many of the moderators' privileges here and there and anywhere on SE.

But for now, I'm asking specifically about access and/or privileges given to users here at MSE, directly or indirectly, who are NOT are not diamond bearing moderators here, who say, have earned the status "trusted user", but behind closed doors, are seen as "special (or favorite) extra-trusted users" by one or more MSE mods. Of course you're going to get to know some users very well, over time. That's not what I'm asking.

What I'm asking is if there exist 2-3 (for all I know, perhaps more) MSE-users who are not MSE-moderators, yet have become "more than" a mere trusted-user, in terms of privileges gained, and or in terms of a "direct access to and action from" one or more moderators?

Now silly me. Of course the answer is going to be "no"... Carry on...

@amWhy If by "comments" you mean comments on the main site (or meta), then only math.se moderators (and SE employees who have diamonds) have access to deleted comments. Of course, anyone might see comments before they are deleted.

If by "comments" you mean chat messages, the situation is a bit more complicated. To start, SE employees (with diamonds) have access to deleted chat messages. But there are three different chat servers: one for Stack Overflow, one for Meta Stack Echange, and one for the rest of the network. An SE site moderator has access to deleted chat messages only on the server associated with their site.

For example, I can see deleted messages in chat rooms associated with physics.se, but not Stack Overflow or Meta Stack Exchange. A Stack Overflow moderator (who only moderates SO) will not have access to see the deleted contents of messages posted in a room associated with math.se.

Didn't ask about chat comments; I get that. I'm referring to an encounter in another MSE chat that deeply perplexed me, along with arousing suspicion on my part. I won't go into details, so as not to refer to another user(s), who has since explained the situation. I'm not in any way close to being conspiracy theorist, so I'm sorry if what I wrote above was confusing and/or struck you as accusatory.

@amWhy OKay, so I just saw your discussion with Martin Sleziak in the other room. So far as I can tell, Martin is pretty meticulous about archiving comments he deems worthwhile. He does this in topical rooms, and also his own chat room, and I wouldn't be surprised if he archives some off-site, too.

If something was posted publicly you kind of have to assume that people saw it, and perhaps even made special note of it. (I know that prior to mod-hood I saved a few screenshots of comment threads that I was certain were going to be purged.)

I didn't delete my comments out of shame or anything close to it. I just did now want to confront Martin in that setting, since I acknowledged my comments were addressing much more than Martin's answer. So I deleted them.

@amWhy You didn't come across as accusatory (at least I didn't read it that way). It's just that more non-math.se-mods have access to deleted chat messages than site comments, and I thought that that was likely the problem. (And those rules are a lot less clear.)

@arjafi Yes, you're right.

@amWhy Seems you got a little "unlucky" that Martin was able to get to those comments in the ~15mins they were visible.

@arjafi Yes, re: non-math.se-mods. I've learned that and I am comfortable with that. I appreciate that you pointed that out, though.

Anyway, I should try to sleep before I fly (my) tomorrow morning. Cheers.

@arjafi Yes indeed! That's part of the reason I was so perplexed in Constructive Feedback this morning.