Potato

It unfortunately answers a different question than the one asked, and it has already misled one person. I feel bad about this.

Dear moderators, could you please delete my accepted answer here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1058658/…

Nevertheless, having multiple misspellings in every sentence makes a bad impression. For example, people are more likely to answer questions that are well-edited, etc. Your writing is the only window we have into you as a person, after all.

What browser do you use?

But presumably you are not using Atom to compose your messages here? There are spellcheckers for browsers that will help you do that.

Are you aware that many browsers and operating systems offer spellchecking tools?

Anyone here handy with Riemannian geometry? I'm having trouble calculating the expression for a geodesic equation.

Thank you.

This is clearly true because the intersection of any collection of closed sets is closed, yes?

The book I'm reading puts the qualifier "finite" on that statement (not "infinite") so I'm wondering if I'm missing something.

Easy question: the common zero set of an infinite number of continuous functions mapping to R is closed, right?

Take the Cantor set on [0,1]. Its complement is open, and the indicator function of this open set is not Riemann integrable, correct?

Are there any moderators about? A user is causing trouble.

No, fortunately you cannot see anything there.

My link is the same as Daniel's.

It looks like someone just took care of it, but a new user posted porn in response to a question here:math.stackexchange.com/questions/872015/…

@robjohn Hey, are you around?

Any moderators around? We have an emergency.

Thanks!

@robjohn Someone is posting intentionally nonsense questions and answers. Could you please do something about this? math.stackexchange.com/users/115389/dr-terence-b-allen

You can do analysis over more complication algebras, but it's really icky, if I recall correctly.

Nothing good comes of separating things out like that.

That's a bad question, Mike!

@TedShifrin You have no questions!

@Mike Thanks!

Hey, do you any of you know of some good unanswered questions that are worthy of a bounty? I'm in a bountying mood tonight.

@T.Bongers Just noticed your location. Are you planning on working with Volberg?

This is clearly not his/her first rodeo.

@anon Do you know which old user Post No Bills is?

Huh. I guess there's all sorts of MSE inside baseball I'm missing.

@anon Questions got bulk-deleted?

@robjohn Thanks.

In what context did someone say, "If you don't like that answer, you will not improve"?

Why?

Normative language?

@EricStucky Yes. Check his profile blurb.

Sorry.

@anon Yes, my connected dropped for a second.

@robjohn I have a moderation concern. This user is vandalizing their answers: math.stackexchange.com/users/17762/user17762?tab=activity

@robjohn I have a moderation concern. This user is vandalizing their answers: math.stackexchange.com/users/17762/user17762?tab=activity

This user is vandalizing his/her answers:math.stackexchange.com/users/17762/user17762?tab=activity

Any moderators present?

I commented and notified the answerer, but nothing was done.

Hi all. What should I do when an accepted answer is wrong?

I agree it looks fine in questions. Without the Courier font it's much less offensive.

Oh, sure. It's just something I've never seen elsewhere, and it seems very out of place to me. Just registering my displeasure.

It looks very weird. Why not use quote marks? That's what they're there for.

Right, that works. I'm wondering if there's a way to see it without appealing to the diagonalization, though. (Because if you're going to diagonalize, why not just do that in the first place and be more explicit?)

Honest question: Must a self-adjoint operator with $1$ as the only point in its spectrum be the identity?

I see what you're trying to do, but is this enough? All you've shown is that the spectrum of the limit is just $1$, which I don't think uniquely characterizes the identity. Or does it?