0
$\begingroup$

I am asking about this: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/4158379/2513

Are there any suggestions on how can I improve it?

$\endgroup$
8
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Here are my immediate thoughts. Your first sentence sounds like it was written in a period before Cauchy gave us the rigorous calculus of limits. The introduction of a complicated notion such as a zeta regularisation (is it the only choice?) is not justified to the reader, especially as the OP does not seem aware of the classical answer, and hence smells of astrology and numerology. Also, it is not at all justified in your post why the regularisation takes this value; so it is a link-only answer. $\endgroup$ – Calvin Khor Jun 2 at 1:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CalvinKhor well, even for a link-only answer that provides the information requested by the OP, 10 downvotes is too much. This is definitely a mobbing. $\endgroup$ – Anixx Jun 2 at 8:17
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Sure, link-only answers that are percieved to actually answer the question indeed do not usually get to the score of +1/-10. I am not convinced that the OP would agree (but I did not vote). By treating the question in a mystical manner that is not very different from how Euler might have, with the casual discussion of the "(regularised) value of [divergent expression]", you do not seem to write in a way that suits the level of the audience (OP). That is also not the only point I raised. IMO your answer raises too many more questions. $\endgroup$ – Calvin Khor Jun 2 at 8:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think this answer needs to be improved, specifically by explaining what "regularised value" means. On the other hand, considering they have asked here how it could be improved, I find the 2 votes to delete a bit harsh - at least give them the time to improve it! $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jun 2 at 9:44
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ Incidentally, the Constructive Feedback chat room is a good place to ask this kind of question, rather than meta. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jun 2 at 9:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The answer in question has been deleted (and its comments were scrubbed clean at some point). A newer answer (3 hours ago) of the OP which I also did not vote on similarly lacks any judgement of the OP("MathBeginner")'s current level of understanding: for a standard example of an integral that does not converge, it was suggested to use a Laplace transform in a non-standard manner (and I am not convinced it is true) to convert it into a different but more 'obviously' divergent 'divergent integral'. This is when the OP says they just found out what "improper integral" means $\endgroup$ – Calvin Khor Jun 2 at 12:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We should keep in mind that the OP isn't the only one to read the page, and that there are multiple answers. It think it is acceptable to leave a more complicated answer on a question that already has answers at a sufficient level for the OP, for any future readers who Google the question. $\endgroup$ – user400188 Jun 2 at 13:12
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @user400188 It isn't just more complicated, it's also a link only answer, that relies on a rather outdated model of limits. $\endgroup$ – Don Thousand Jun 2 at 18:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .