http://mathoverflow.net/tools?tab=close&daterange=last7days

you may get some, but often those closed 2-7 days are pushed off the page by more recently closed questions. How do you pull them up?

Later: Having searched more I see mention of "the delete button which shows up when I mouse over my answer" At least in Chrome I don't get that.

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/98410/does-every-operator-from-a-hilbert-space-to-l0-factor-through-a-canonical-one

went wild. I cannot delete it because the delete button does not show. Will a moderator please delete the comment?

TIA

I know its not good on my part to convey these things here, but I find this is the most feasible way of doing it, as I don't have an email Id of every person, and also I have been prevented from MO from posting questions any further, so I could at least use this MO meta as a last resort to do this thing.

I don't know about the reaction I get , let us see. But its sure that I wont post anything like this any further, I think MO community should keep at-least some tag on its home page saying Merry christmas, even though I am not a christian, I want a religious harmony should exist atleast one day , which is of important occasion.

What do you say ?

P.S: Interestingly waiting, how does this thread turns out to be.

Is there a way to edit a question/answer without having it get bumped to the front page?

Here is a recent example (one of several):

comlemented subspaces

The question has received various responses; in particular (from KConrad):

"If you consider traditional calculus to mean calculus in one variable, then that leads to complex analysis in one variable. At first it was done on C, but for more flexibility (particularly in relation to speaking about analytic continuation without awkward branch cuts) Riemann introduced the idea of doing complex analysis on a one-dimensional complex manifold, and those are essentially the same thing as Riemann surfaces"

and my subsequent response:

"[following up from you (sic) response-] Was that the primary motivation for Riemann surfaces? ... I'm trying to understand if - (and in what way if applicable) - the Riemann surface concept brought coherence to the ideas in analysis{star}, geometry, and algebra (specifically, the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra (as this theorem, as far I'm aware, required introduction of complex analysis / complex analytic ideas to prove [at least as one of its earlier / earliest proofs])). [{star} to refer to the above statement here: "[theory of Riemann surfaces] is [the] culmination of much of traditional calculus"]".

I'm not searching for textbooks or technical material [except books on the historical genesis and motivating reason(s) for Riemann surfaces]. ... More specifically, [as above], the relation between the birth of Riemann surface theory in light of developments within the three primary branches: geometry, analysis, and algebra.

(Within geometry: the emergence of non-Euclidean geometries: (especially as most of non-Euclidean geometries use the notion of 'manifold' - which, if I'm not mistaken - came from the context of studying Riemann surfaces);

Within analysis: -- KConrad's statement above -- ;

and

Within algebra: the fact that a good number of proofs of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra require the use of ideas from complex analysis (and, indirectly, relate to Riemann surfaces).)

I want to get an expert's take on the thread's outlined above, and the relation between each other and the concept of Riemann surfaces.

So, basically, that is my question.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

So the actual goal is a specialization of the title goal of this post: How do I use Google to search the MathOverflow user pages for something (e.g. users who might be interested in study groups)? Anton (Hopefully Dr. Geraschenko by now?) has kindly provided some examples in the past, perhaps he can answer the specific question and remind us of the variations. I also welcome answers from other MathOverflow/Internet savants/masters.

Gerhard "He Doesn't Know The Territory" Paseman, 2011.06.10

Adding as a coauthor is a higher step than I would think that answering a question on mathoverflow should warrant. I'm curious as to what question was answered that could lead to such a generous offer!

Much more likely is simply acknowledging someone's help. Here I think that the best strategy is not to acknowledge the help of a particular person, but to acknowledge mathoverflow as a whole. So, for example, say:

Here we need to solve the identity Ax = b. The following is distilled from the answers on mathoverflow to \cite{question on mathoverflow}.

To do this, of course, someone should come up with a template for the bibliographic information. Looking at the basic BibTeX fields, I'd go for:

• Title: Question title
• Author: Mathoverflow
• Eprint: Direct link to question in Mathoverflow
• Date: Date asked (?)

Another related question: how many votes are needed to undelete a question? Is that 5?

Thanks.

Can you think of a way to search for the relevant question/answers so that I can then tag them with a "g2" tag?

(There is an "exceptional-groups" tag, not used a lot...)

Is this an appropriate (and new) question to ask?

The problem is, refreshing the feed in google reader does not seem to reflect the latest content; there seems to be some delay. The new questions, or recent activity of a user, seems to appear in the RSS feed only after a while. So it is not as effective as refreshing the MO frontpage or MO user recent activity page.

Is there a way to get around this?

I've also pasted it into a public wave, which you should be able to find by logging into wave and typing "with:public how to write a good Math Overflow question" into the search box. If you don't have a wave account and want one, let me know. I have 53 invitations.

It seems use of an array would give a garbled output.

$\begin{array}{ll} d & t \ \ d & g \ \ 4 & 5 \end{array}$ renders d g d t 4 5 in one line.

Note: Here \ \ actually stands for two backslashes without a space. But if I type it that way it is not rendered properly in meta.

In the meantime —

How does one associate entries made while unregistered with those made while registered, or collate entries that one accidentally makes on some "unknown google" account?