Timeline for Should MO perhaps give numerological abductive questions a little more benefit of the doubt
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2018 at 22:13 | comment | added | David Halitsky | re your doubts whether you should have voted to re-open that MSE question on Coxeter's projections - see the answer I just provided - really quite beautiful mathematically, in a very subtle way . . . | |
| Jan 16, 2018 at 15:15 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added direct link to search which is mentioned as supporting evidence
|
| Jan 15, 2018 at 17:21 | comment | added | David Halitsky | please see this link as an indication that I will also make a good-faith effort to address Andy's concern that I don't provide technical answers: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1358046/… | |
| Jan 15, 2018 at 15:07 | comment | added | David Halitsky | thanks as always for taking the time to respond. I will be sure to keep your suggestions in mind, after the six-month question ban wait-period has elapsed and I am able to ask new questions. But regarding whether you were correct to vote to re-open, if you visit the chat room and look at the last piece of in info provided by Wendy, you may see why we now have information indicating that your vote to re-open was probably correct because there is an E6:E8 relation in 8-space that probably DOES have an interesting reflex in 3-space. | |
| Jan 15, 2018 at 14:59 | history | answered | Todd TrimbleMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |