« first day (3050 days earlier)      last day (1741 days later) » 

00:57
51
Q: Proof (claimed) for Riemann hypothesis on ArXiv

David HandelmanHas anyone noticed the paper On the zeros of the zeta function and eigenvalue problems by M. R. Pistorius, available on ArXiv? The author claims a proof of RH, and also a growth condition on the zeros. It was posted two weeks ago, and I expected it would have been shot down by now. Has there bee...

The question is from 3 years ago. I request to close it because it has no apparent mathematical content other than asking for verification of an ArXiv paper (not specific details, but the whole paper). Leaving it open will only serve as a bad example for similar question (as mentioned in a recent question
2
 
2 hours later…
03:18
@YuiToCheng I can’t argue with the rationale to close, but it makes me wince to see this have to happen to David Handelman.... but I really don’t want to see more questions like it :s
 
2 hours later…
04:58
Your posts mostly go like problem statements + hint-like stuff without explicitly writing down how you apply those hints. See How to ask a good question. — Saad 6 mins ago
Honestly it seems to me that the OP that I commented above has been circumventing getting their posts closed as PSQs by adding hint-like stuff or “efforts” that are in no way helpful for solving their problems
By adding such low-quality contexts, their posts are dragged near the borderline but they're still of low quality, IMHO.
Although I cannot figure out or assume the OP's intention, but if they're really doing so in order to disguise their posts as non-PSQs, is it good to flag for mod's attention?
05:44
@MattSamuel, @Saad I did add a serious effort (of my own) when salvaging this question. It does amount to hijacking the question, but I did it anyway for I wanted it to survive (and placed a bounty). The alternative would have been to reask it as my own question, but then we would have one more orphaned question, and I don't think that is satisfactory either.
I just now re-edited that question to make it clear that the extra is from me. I apologize for not making that clear in the first edit. Anyway, that question was so obviously not homework, and I (internally) apply a different set of rules:-)
Of course, I also plead guilty to this incident from the past. A rookie mod (two of us actually) trying to mediate an un/delete war by a radical edit. I admit that the "edit" I made at the time was silly, and made the question look artificial. The motivation was simply to test whether the "do not delete" crowd can be nudged towards curating the questions themselves. I think we know the answer by now.
user185131
Dup1 that I mentioned earlier still requires one close vote. Curiously, it seems that the question has been voted "Leave Open" in the review queue.
@Brahadeesh The fifth vote came :-)
user185131
@JyrkiLahtonen Thank you very much :)
06:08
@XanderHenderson I starred that comment for I can accept it as a rule. I just think that in cases like the one I linked to (4 comments up) a radical edit worked better than reasking it myself. Admittedly I was a bit lazy also even though I think the end result is fine.
A downside to my action was that a new asker raked in 19 "undeserved" upvotes. They haven't had any actions since, so I don't think the privileges the OP earned damaged the site. I am unsure what is best actually.
Of course, when I edit the question, grade A material is left behind. OTOH they make wishy-washy edits only to protect their ego point gravy train. Beam and mote.
 
4 hours later…
10:24
@JyrkiLahtonen Just out of curiosity, is there some reason why in that post coincides is always written as "coïncides"? Wiktionary says it is French - so I guess it should be edited. Still, as my English is not that great, I though that it is better to ask firs.
11:01
@MartinSleziak I'm afraid I cannot help you there. I guess it is, indeed, of French origin. In English (Frecnh?) you see umlauted 'i's to help with the pronunciation. Basically telling that the 'i' begins a new syllable, or may be it's related to stresses? Anyway, the peril could be that someone parses (and mispronounces) the word as if it started like 'coin', and this practice reminds the reader. Need an educated native speaker for a full explanation.
Ok. So from your message it seems that this is sometimes used also in English.
Anyway, I'll stay away from editing this - it's for people who have better grasp of English than I do.
Compare with 'Zaïre/Zaire'. The French use the umlaut in order not to coalesce 'ai' into a single vowel. Unsure about English.
11:59
@MartinSleziak Native speaker here. I've never seen the umlaut for "coincides," and I doubt it's correct. I've honestly seen it only for the word "naive," and that rarely, though maybe I'm just not well read enough.
12:27
@Saad I think you did the right thing reverting. I think we should probably try reversion until hijinks ensue, and then escalate with flags.
Close (+12 in 2 hrs)
@TheSimpliFire That's a really good example of non-context context!
@JyrkiLahtonen :)
@JyrkiLahtonen In English, the "usual" rule is that if two vowels are written consecutively, only a single phoneme is represented (e.g. the 'ea' in 'to read', or the 'oa' in 'boar'). The diaeresis (not an umlaut) over the second vowel can be used to indicate that both vowels are pronounced (e.g. 'coöperation' and 'coördinate').
That being said, I don't think that most native English speakers and writers are familiar with this practice, hence, "coincides" is likely to be more easily understood than "coïncides", even if the latter is correct. I think that the use of the diaeresis in this context might be seen as pretentious.
@TheSimpliFire And you got there first. :P
I should read to the end of a thread before replying.
@TheSimpliFire I did not know that the diaeresis could be called a 'hiatus'. I'm going to have to remember, as hiatus is easier to spell and type than diaeresis.
13:21
Native speakers (of (American) English at least) tend to be the worst when it comes to explaining the language, since they don't really study it, they just speak it. I was not formally taught grammar in school except in passing, which is typical in the US. English spelling has generally not been very friendly when it comes to indicating pronunciation though, so it's not surprising that it disappeared.
Especially since it's difficult to type on keyboards.
13:42
Thanks, @XanderHenderson. I have become a bit more educated. I recall having seen coördinate and have used naïve myself. May be it is an old school thing nowadays? The description "pretentious" may be close to the mark :-).
@MattSamuel A friend's wife (an interpreter by training and English teacher by profession) explained it to me once. English spelling is notoriously difficult because A) it is old, and B) has multiple roots (Saxon, French, Germanic, Celtic...) pulling into different directions. So the difficulties people have should not be attributed only to (lack of) education.
C) A spelling reform at this point in time would be hideously expensive, and met with resistance from those who took the trouble to learn it.
Anyway if I compare it to my native Finnish. Our written language was designed by a disciple of Martin Luther (so that everybody could study the bible). And we have a bijection between letters and phonemes (ok, there is a single easy exception). This means that we don't have spelling bees because most of the 9-year-olds would ace them.
14:00
@JyrkiLahtonen Oddly enough, it is Indians (from India, not American Indians) who dominate the American spelling bee scene.
14:29
I hate it when bad ways to do things are so set they're impossible to fix.
How much more could we accomplish when not preoccupied with things like weird spellings
15:02
@Saad "... it seems to me that the OP that I commented above has been circumventing getting their posts closed as PSQs " How is it different from this question: Proving two binomial identities
@T.S Your message is hard to digest. How are they not different?
And this one: Finding $\sum\limits_{k=1}^akf(k,a)$, which does not even mention a hint.
I saw the public invitation of @rschwieb on meta: "Join the room and take actions at posts you see posted. You can react in whatever way you want as long as it is in good faith (i.e. not simply robo-voting everything open because you can't be bothered to change your bias about the room.)"
If the product one needs to be closed, then I'm afraid adding extra "context" to the "binomial identities" one, if possible, is necessary.
This matches the big E in "CURED".
15:25
1 message moved to ­Trash
4 messages moved to ­Trash
Discussion of who is or is not a "sockpuppet" is off-topic. Please refrain from such discussions in the future.
@XanderHenderson You've also removed the last comment of me, which is a normal response to another user :/
Actually, no, I am not sorry. The comment mentioned deleted comments, and context was lost. In isolation, the last comment did not make sense.
If it was an important reply, link it to the correct comment (using the "reply") feature, and avoid referencing comments such as "the comment above the comment where you said 'foo'".
@Saad For example, this comment links up to one higher in the thread.
@Saad Well, I raised the question and I also gave links to two questions that I consider the same style. That's why I asked. I believe this is what the C and E in this room for. I would be quite surprised, and I would like to see, if others consider those three questions are all different by your "PSQ" standard.
@T.S I am not sure that I understand your question. If the question is "Are these questions different?" the answer is "Yes. They are not duplicates of each other, and ask about different material."
On the other hand, if the question is "Would you consider all of these questions to be PSQs?", then I think that the answer is also "Yes."
@T.S 1) Your comment didn't say at all in what aspect the linked posts are different; 2) What are you trying to say by the existence of even-lower-quality posts?
15:33
None of them demonstrate any significant understand, nor do they provide much in the way of context or motivation. They are not high quality questions.
Now, for more detailed discussion:
6
Q: Proving two binomial identities

W. VolanteI would like to show that$$\sum_{j=n-k}^n\binom nj(1-x)^{n-j-1}x^{j-1}(j-nx)=\binom n{n-k}(n-k)(1-x)^kx^{n-k-1}\\\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\frac{(-1)^k}n\binom{n-1}k\binom n{n-k}(n-k)(1-x)^kx^{n-k-1}\\=(-1)^{n-1}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\binom{n-1}k\binom{n+k-1}k(-x)^k$$ I feel I exhausted all identities/properties...

This question asserts that the asker tried some things, but demonstrates none of those things. It is, I think, essentially impossible for a later editor to fix this up. One cannot read the asker's mind and determine what, precisely, they tried.
Any attempt to edit this question is almost certain to conflict with the author's original intent. If the content of the question is important or interesting enough to preserve, it would be better to ask a new question, with the context and motivation of the interested party.
-1
Q: How can I calculate in terms of n the product $\prod_{k=0}^{n}\frac{1}{\sin(2^k\cdot\theta)}$?

TasWhat simplification I can do for this problem? I tried to use $\sin a\sin b=-2(\cos (a+b)+\cos (a-b))$, but I didn't got it...

This question is similar. Without input from the original asker, I don't see how editing could salvage it in a way that is consistent with the meaning intended by the original asker. An appropriate edit would be to copy the question into the question body, but this is not a significant enough edit to really salvage the question. The asker needs to be more involved.
1
Q: Finding $\sum\limits_{k=1}^akf(k,a)$

pgp1First we define $f:\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ by$$f(x,a)=\begin{cases}\dfrac1a;&x=1\\\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{a-x+1}\frac1a f(x-1,a-k);&1<x\leqslant a\end{cases}.$$ ($f$ is defined that way only where $x\leq a$ in every other place it is $0$.) How can I find $$\sum_{k=1}^ak...

This is also PSQ in my opinion, and I don't see an obvious way to salvage it via an edit.
0
Q: Related prime factors

NimishDo there exist a positive integer $N$ and three primes $p_1<p_2<p_3$ such that the only prime factors of $N-p_1$ is $p_2$, the only prime factors of $N-p_2$ are $p_1,p_3$ and the only prime factors of $N-p_3$ are $p_1,p_2$?

I'll note that the discussion above is (I hope obviously) my opinion on the matter, and others very well may disagree.
-1
Q: How should we call $x^{\text{rational number}}$ functions?

OmGI know that the general expression for polynomial with degree $n$ is $a_n x^n + a_{n-1}x^{n-1} + \cdots + a_0$. My question is, is there any specific name to linear combination of $x^{\text{rational number}}$?. For example $2 x^{2.5} + 1.3 x^{1.3}$. Notice that we have a similar question here, bu...

This one is also a PSQ.
15:50
@Saad As I have answered that question, I feel like you are looking through my history and trying to accuse me of hypocrisy (i.e. I feel slightly attacked). However, I will defend that question.
It is a short question, but in in the asker is confused about terminology. I have previously stated here (and elsewhere) that I think that the bar for and questions is a little lower. Such questions often don't require much context to make clear.
The asker also references an older question and a wikipedia article where the terminology is discussed, which helps to explain their confusion. There is context, and evidence of research having been attempted.
@Saad If you think that second one is a PSQ, you have a very strange definition of PSQ, since there's no problem there and it just asks for the name of something.
In any event, if you do feel that it is a PSQ, I will have to politely disagree, but encourage you to vote your conscience.
@XanderHenderson @MattSamuel I didn't know that posts on terminology have a lower bar for quality. Is that really an established consensus?
@Saad I said "I have previously stated here (and elsewhere) that I think that the bar for terminology and notation questions is a little lower."
I was, I hope, clearly expressing my opinion, and not any kind of consensus.
@XanderHenderson That's exactly why I wonder if it's some consensus to act according to.
16:01
I suspect that there exists a consensus basically in line with what I wrote, but I am not sure that anyone has every explicitly tested it. I know that there are other active users here who disagree with me.
@XanderHenderson So what do you think about this one:
2
Q: Are these two notations of summation equivalent

Soham Chatterjee$\sum \limits_{n=1}^{\infty}$ and $\sum \limits_{n>0}$ here $n\in \mathbb{N}$ Sometimes i stuck with the notations of summation. are these two equivalent

@Saad I don't think that it is a great question, I wouldn't answer it, and I suspect that it is a duplicate. However, if I cannot find a good dupe target, it meets my minimal bar for notation questions.
20 mins ago, by Xander Henderson
The asker also references an older question and a wikipedia article where the terminology is discussed, which helps to explain their confusion. There is context, and evidence of research having been attempted.
While this one has no context nor evidence of research.
@Saad Which is why I don't think that it is a good question, and why I wouldn't take the time to answer it.
16:16
@XanderHenderson The comparison I made above makes wonder if your minimal bar can be translated to “typing out the notation with a simple sentence of question.”
No offence.
On the other hand, I am not sure what else one could do to make the question much better. There are two notations. Are they the same or different? What more can be said?
At best, one might include a reference to the notation in context.
In any event, it is not a PSQ. The "P" in PSQ stands for "problem", as in the kind of exercise which one might find in a textbook. This question asks about the meaning of certain notation. There is no problem there.
@XanderHenderson My bad :P
@Saad This assumes that all questions are either "good" or "bad". Question quality is not binary. The question to which you have linked is a natural question, the notation is common, and it is clearly understood and needs little context. It is not a great question and I wouldn't waste my time answering it, but I also don't think that it is so terrible that it needs to be closed.
Before I vote to close a question, I like to ask "What additional context would save this question?" If I can't think of anything, I don't vote to close.
In this case, I am not sure that I can think of additional context which would be natural, and which would make the question better.
@XanderHenderson But this definition of P narrows down the scope of PSQ candidates to homework exercises, whereas there're plenty of examples of PSQs that are not assignment problems, some of which are even by users with 10k+ rep.
@Saad I disagree. But I've told you how I interpret the "p", whereas you have not explained how you interpret it.
I think that PSQ is a narrow category of questions, which can basically be seen as homework exercises without additional context.
Note that "'please solve' questions" is another interpretation of PSQ.
The asker presents a problem (e.g. an exercise, not a question), and demands a solution.
16:32
@XanderHenderson There're many posts written in a format like “[conditions] + [What is / Is there / How to…?]” with no other contexts/efforts shown (Example to be added). How do you categorize such posts?
E.g.
0
Q: Isomorphic finite rings?

Nathan PortlandLet $p$ be a prime number, $P$ and $Q$ monic polynomial of degree $k\geq 2$, irreducible over $\mathbb Z_p$. Do we have $$\mathbb Z_{p^2}[x]/(P) \simeq \mathbb Z_{p^2}[x]/(Q)\ ?$$

Btw, posts formated like this are especially frequently seen in the field of abstract algebra and I don't know why.
That is (in my opinion) a problem statement question. The user has stated a problem for which they desire a solution.
The question could easily have been lifted from a textbook.
Well, apparently it is written like a question instead of like an exercise.
You are focusing too much on the form of the question, not the content.
@XanderHenderson By showing this example, I merely want to express that “problems”, when interpreted as exercises, are too limited to be considered to be closed since the concept of exercise itself relies heavily on the form of presentation.
@Saad Which is why I never said that PSQ is an exercise. What I said is that a PSQ can "can basically be seen as homework exercises without additional context".
"The asker presents a problem (e.g. an exercise, not a question), and demands a solution."
@Saad Yes, I just quoted that in the comment above.
What is your point?
16:44
20 mins ago, by Xander Henderson
I think that PSQ is a narrow category of questions, which can basically be seen as homework exercises without additional context.
Yes, that is the text which I just quoted.
2 mins ago, by Xander Henderson
@Saad Which is why I never said that PSQ is an exercise. What I said is that a PSQ can "can basically be seen as homework exercises without additional context".
What is your point?
Hmm. Is “can be basically seen as” substantially different from “is”?
Yes.
Because "is" implies an equality, which would include things like form.
The hedges in that quoted text are important.
By way of analogy: an integer is not a rational number; rational numbers are equivalence classes of pairs of integers. However, there is a natural embedding of the integers into the rationals, thus the integers "can basically be seen as" rational numbers.
OK, so a dichotomy is needed for this one but questions cannot be simply labeled good or bad.
That's a quite versatile way of thinking.
And, again, I'll go back to my previous comment: if you are going to vote to close a question for lacking context, you should first imagine what kind of additional context would improve the question. If you cannot imagine any such context, then "lack of context" is the wrong close reason.
16:51
I'm leaving it.
I can imagine a great deal of context which would improve the question of isomorphic rings: clarification of the notation (requested in the comments), a reference to some text where the basic ideas are defined, a reiteration of relevant theorems and definitions, etc.
@XanderHenderson Those could have been there, but well…
Bye!
With respect to the question about the equivalence of notations for sums, I have difficulty imagining what additional context could be added which would genuinely make the question better. On the other hand, I have provided a couple of potential dupe targets.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body (94): 2D-Tucker is in PPAD complete ✏️ by fraulifang on math.SE
 
1 hour later…
18:32
Reopen? R1, R2.
19:14
@user21820 I've attempted to clean up the formatting of R1. I don't think that it is a stellar question, but I think that there is enough there to understand where the user is coming from. I'm willing to vote to reopen.
I lack the expertise to comment on R2. It looks more like a physics question to me (i.e. whether or not the small angle approximation is appropriate is, I think, a physics question). I am more than willing to be convinced that it should be reopened (it actually looks like a good question to me, I'm just not sure that it is on-topic).
 
2 hours later…
21:07
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, no whitespace in body, repeating characters in body, repeating characters in title (330): hard questionnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn ✏️ by nate.054 on math.SE
math.stackexchange.com/questions/3681326/… Vandalism. Would someone roll it back?
I don't have the edit privilege hence my edit will certainly be rejected by the author.
 
3 hours later…
23:43
@user12986714 amwhy took care of the rollback. Good catch

« first day (3050 days earlier)      last day (1741 days later) »