@MichaelAlbanese The question is precisely asked, and from what I see, vagueness and duplication are the two big issues when it comes to reference requests on meta. From what I see, though, it may have helped if OP added one more line about what their plan of action was, once they studied this subject (was it in preparation for a certain paper? Or a part of another textbook?) This is certainly useful. The tags are correct, though, so I give the benefit of doubt, and I'm not voting to close.
@XanderHenderson I would say that the fermi-problems tag would be a lot better for it than recreational mathematics. If the aim of the question were a useful estimate then it's borderline on-topic here, or maybe on Physics.SE. If it's, as suggested, to test a candidates approach to such problems then we're definitely the wrong SE for that. Trying to get mathematicians to reach a consensus is tricky... ;-)
@lonestudent The author can edit it even after the closure. But OK, retracting the close-vote is an option (I did not know that this is possible at all - how can it be done ? )
@Peter Yes I was wrong as I was quick to review the formula/question. There is no problem with the question. It was the same thing as the formula I wrote. Are you asking how the close-vote retracement is possible?
@TeresaLisbon The question does not provide enough context about the level of the OP to adequately answer the question. Even reference request need context to help answerers determine appropriate references. Michael merely guessed. Asker accepted, though never clarifies whether they have any clue regarding the answer.
@amWhy: I'm not sure what you mean by the level of the OP when it comes to a reference request for a definition. I understand if it is a request for a textbook or lecture notes on some topic. Not arguing, just trying to understand your point of view.
@MichaelAlbanese I addressed @Teresa, not you. Thanks for your thoughts though. There was insufficient information given from the OP for you or anyone to be confident that which reference request was most appropriate. The fact that the OP accepted your suggestion means very little.... they can only know how fitting it is after they see it. It's like "I need a text for calculus, and someone suggests Michael Spivak's text, while the user asking is only 14. That's happened often on this site, ...
...and I wish you wouldn't race to immediately answer, rather than asking the user for more information. That's all.
^^^^@MichaelAlbanese And that's what the EoQS asks for too.
Are you going to respond to me, @Teresa, or not, or will you elsewhere?
@amWhy: Given that you were discussing the issue I brought up, I thought it would be OK to reply. What makes one reference which states a definition better than another reference which states the same definition? Like I said, if it were asking for a text for calculus, then I would agree with you, but it was asking for a definition.
@MichaelAlbanese You are free to speak here, @MichaelAlbanese. I had a question for Teresa that I did not have for you. But you are absolutely free to speak here.
You also left a comment on the question stating it had insufficient context, so when I came here and saw you had also discussed it here, I thought it would be entirely appropriate to ask for clarification.
@amWhy I looked up some meta posts to see if there were any special guidelines that were requested for reference-requests. The fact that the tags were chosen correctly was evident, furthermore the topic doesn't fall in my regime, which means I cannot make a comment about what is sufficient and what is not. I told Michael this, and mentioned that I wouldn't be closing it because everything I've said so far clarifies it as borderline.
The EoQS asks us to look for context, but this question was sufficiently advanced for me to be unable to suggest improvement. Sure, I gave a general guideline to Michael (i.e. ask OP to mention why they wanted to know XYZ information) but over here, I actually have something to say about this subject that I know from talking to a friend.
@TeresaLisbon Thanks for the explanation. Though, as with any topic what soever, there is "beginner level references, and "advanced level" for which references are geared, too many math.se recommend the advanced texts they are fond of, which are typically not helpful to newbies in the field. Hence, describing the context (class, grade) in which the question is motivated, is essential in actually taking into account the askers level.
One need not be an expert in a field, when the asker is likely not. You are free to please who you wish to please, @Teresa.
@MichaelAlbanese Rudin's Principles of Real Analysis and Stewart's Calculus each give definitions of continuity which are essentially the same. However, I would not recommend the former to first-year undergraduate, nor the latter to a graduating senior.
Some context is required in order to know what resources is going to be most appropriate for a given student. Moreover, I would wonder why a reference is needed at all---if all the asker requires is a definition, would an answer consisting of that definition be appropriate?
@amWhy Point taken, I still think this is borderline. I think this OP knows what they are talking about. On what basis? On the basis of their previous questions. But I see the general point , if one post remains open it is still an example for many. With that in mind I will vote to close, but I am still very ambivalent about this.
It is also worth noting that context is not meant only to match an answer to the level of the asker, but to give future readers roadsigns for their own questions. Maybe the original asker finds a particular resource useful, but it is too advanced or too elementary for a future reader. Context is also for posterity.
@MichaelAlbanese I just found that two of OP's last few questions (and an answer) seem a little low-quality. I'm voting to close this because I find amWhy's argument strong.
@MichaelAlbanese Even at an advanced level, I can think of at least three scenarios off the top of my head in which someone might ask for a reference: (1) they are unfamiliar with the material, and need an introduction (so an appropriate reference might be a textbook), (2) they have studied the material before, and need a refresher (an appropriate reference might be a more advanced textbook, a wikipedia page, a mathworld page, or a paper), or...
I don't want OP to get into the pattern of posting questions considered arguably low on context, when they are capable of providing it, so this should send some kind of a message, although your answering the question may have slightly diluted the message. We can still improve the question.
(3) the asker needs a reference for a bibliography (in which case the earliest reference is probably most appropriate).
Knowing which of these (or something else) is sought would be helpful in providing a good answer ("good" in the sense that it is useful both to the original asker and to future readers).
@XanderHenderson: I don't think (1) applies if they explicitly ask for a definition, but I get your overall point. Maybe by probing, it may have been the case that the OP was in situation (1) but didn't say so in the post.
I do find the accusation that I "race to immediately answer" to be unfair (both in this case and in general), but maybe there is a pattern I am not conscious of.
@MichaelAlbanese Thanks, I've also got to be more consistent. To be honest, I tried to please you, Michael. This is a bad habit, and I will try to get over it.
I am definitely trying to be more aware of asking for context for higher level questions. In the past I have been more willing to let that slide due to my interest in the question.
@TeresaLisbon: Don't we all? That's OK. I didn't come here to sway opinion one way or the other, I just wanted to hear the opposing viewpoint. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.
@TeresaLisbon I really get frustrated when a mod fails to recognize an obvious PSQ or recognizes it but answers any way, as in this case. And @Xander, for the previous mod offender, and this current example, these are not isolated instances of "slipping"; it's actually a long-standing pattern of persistently answering low quality questions. At least Jack A had the where-with-all to resign for doing so.
(Correction to the borderline issue : the question is here).
@amWhy This was a bad one. I don't think this question should be kept on. I also don't understand what "intrinsically interesting" means. I've often seen this to defend some questions, typically an "if they are intrinsically interesting they do not require context" for context, some current mod said this (not Xander).
@TeresaLisbon That's the one I just addressed. But as long as mods refuse to challenge other mods, because they claim they Promise to never call out any other mod, (the ultimate source of immense injustice on the network in general), it seems mods can stomp all over EoQS, and even crap on it, at will.
What does "intrinsic" even mean, and do upvotes measure "intrinsic" interestingness? I don't think so, we usually keep saying they don't reflect community opinion on things. I don't know, but if the question of the rationality of e^{sqrt(pi)} (or whatever that number was) is intrincially interesting and got 13 up votes, then I'm almost wondering if it's intrinsically interesting or just fancy, really.
@amWhy There was some discussion of this in the Mathematics chatroom. I don't see the answer as being particularly problematic, as the question is several years old, the other answers are less good, and there is some argument that there should be a canonical Q&A with this problem. I think that answering the question is justifiable, even if not ideal (regardless of the fact that the new answer was provided by a moderator).
It's a fancy word meaning "Since I found this interesting, it is intrinsically interesting, and if others can't see it, they're inferior", more or less.
@XanderHenderson Should moderators behave ideally? On one hand they are human beings, on the other hand people look to them as being examples. I don't think this question should have been answered, just like the other one with the other mod, who removed EoQS related comments. I put up the transcript for that one on the math mods' office.
@XanderHenderson If robjohn set out to answer it with a canonical answer, that's one thing. If after answering it, (a four year old question, mind you), and only then it was suggested it should be a canonical answer, by robjohn, that to me, is an excuse to to forgive is answer, after the fact. But I don't have all the details. I'm just really hoping for more consistent enforcement on this site, and the expectation that mods lead by example. Yes, there will be an occasional oops ...
But there are too many "oops" in robjohn's closet.
Could this be enough to reopen? Funnily enough, I don't know the answer to this question but I do know that the author is close in the following sense : being a vertex on a convex hull is equivalent to connecting to a point such that there are n-2 points on the other side (and I've seen research employ this).
Imprecision hurts it, but in nature it seems like the right way to start.
In fact, @Xander, both Ted Shiffren and robjohn, who are treated like Gods in the Mathematics chat, such that no one ever challenges them there, both have extensive examples of answering PSQs, like 50% of their records are FGITW on their areas of favor. So can I self appoint myself for answering old poor questions to give a canonical answer to each of them, and be exempt from anyone fretting about me, NOW, answer PSQs in the past? I suspect no.
@amWhy No problem, it is recent and will go soon. We should talk to this OP about advanced questions at some time, but maybe Michael will do it if the other question is to be improved.
I don't know what is going on here There's something so obvious in the question that's wrong, I'm almost rubbing my eyes. Then the answer : what does it actually address?
What to do with this deletable question A comment says that OP heard this on the news. If this qualifies as something relevant, then others can edit it, otherwise it should go as it stands.
@TeresaLisbon I don't think EoQS applies retroactively to questions asked years ago. In any case there has been quite long-standing consensus in CURED to take no action on such questions so I don't see why answers should be treated differently.
@TeresaLisbon Absolutely, and my Arturo, who has as much freedom around here as any mod, despite the fact half the posts he's answering these days are PSQs. A lot of explanation is needed. The mod answering that needs to retire, as does at least two mods who are no shows, documented, one of which has repeatedly disppeared form more than six months at a time.
@TheSimpliFire Users answering Old posts since May 2021 are subject to the EoQS. Particularly if they are mods NOW answering them. I'm fine with "no action"... but I'm not fine with moderators and privileged users seeking out old questions to only NOW answer.
@TheSimpliFire Please don't behave as though you have more authority here than anyone else. Yes you're a mod on a low-level beta site. But when you come to this chat, take your mod had off, please.
Robjohn is not a god, but he almost always answers or comments on questions that are actually asked of him. I've never seen his arrogant comment. I asked him to answer my 3 questions (my question was not active and no one wanted to answer it) and he answered within the same day.
@TeresaLisbon @amWhy This will have to be confirmed by moderators. As far I am aware there hasn't been meta policy on answering substandard questions asked prior to any such policies were made necessary. In this instance, the old question was answered due to a merge action taken 5 days ago (math.stackexchange.com/questions/4212480/…) which adds to the evidence base.
@amWhy Given the new post was asked 30/Jul 0:03, with (now merged) comments at 0:09, 0:10, answers at 0:14, 0:17 then merged 30/Jul 19:43, I'd be "guessing" with absolute certainty. The only question is how Jyrki's comment managed to be retained in the new post with the other comments transferred to the old question.
I'm off right now, but there was very nearly a PSQ answered by a mod here, thankfully they recognized their error and got OP to improve the question, it can probably be reopened.
This answer to proving that $\lim_{x \to 0}\frac{\sin(x)}{x}=1$ is undoubtedly circular, but I'm wondering if we should undelete it, given that the comments serve as a warning to why you can't use L'Hôpital's rule. Note that the answer was edited to include this warning at the top, and so I don't see any chance of people being misled.
Llya commented about this at the top of the post, but not everybody reads the comments, and the explanation for why it is circular to use L'Hôpital is fleshed out more in the comments to the deleted answer.
@amWhy As I said, the question came up in the Mathematics chatroom yesterday, and there were complaints that the given answers were incorrect (or misleading). The conversation started with someone voicing confusion. While I cannot read robjohn's mind, I think it is clear that he provided the answer in the spirit of providing a canonical answer to correct previous answers to a highly-answered and prominent question.
The question should have been closed and deleted four years ago, but it exists now. We have to work with the world we live in.
It is not ideal, but I think that new questions are a far more pressing issue.
