Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Your attitude in the comments was less than stellar. But I agree that this question should not be closed if other similar questions weren't, and I've voted to reopen. I still think you should narrow your definition of closed form if you want anyone to actually answer this question.
You should improve the motivation section before it is reopened. You can edit questions even if they are closed.
Anixx, your attitude is confrontational and unpleasant and your question is poorly motivated. The main differences between your posts and the other post you're complaining about include the politeness of the author, the attempt to provide motivation and a clear description of what was sought, and the willingness to accept the meaningful, correct answer of Oleg Eroshkin. A 2-second search for the word "wikipedia" will demonstrate that "improving wikipedia" is not sufficient motivation for having a thread on MO kept open (and thank goodness!).
Inversely, purposely wrecking wikipedia is sufficient motivation for having a thread on MO.
If $f(x)$ is equal to $-\tan x$ in a small interval and to zero outside of it, then the $f(x+1)-f(x)=\tan x$ in some interval. This can be fixed to be piecewise continuous and still satisfy $f(x+1)-f(x)=\tan x$ in some interval.
This cannot be a solution to any interesting problem.
Anixx, you asked for an explanation and I provided you with one. Of course, this is a product of my personal perspective, and I'm not particularly interested in debating the details of it. I think that you would be better-served trying to adapt to community norms here rather than trying to fight those who give you their input.
@jbl: I think there is a language disconnect here, where the OP is understanding the word motivation in the sense that we're "questioning his motivations" not "information that will give the reader a reason to care."
@Harry: could be. Actually, it seems that a lot of Anixx's unpleasantness is rooted in low-level misunderstandings -- for example, in the comment left at http://mathoverflow.net/questions/42625/what-is-so-special-with-one-bit-of-information on 2010-10-19 15:12:19Z UTC, Anixx doesn't seem to be able to understand Alex Bartel's comment (even with further explanation), and look at the number of pixels spilled at http://mathoverflow.net/questions/42550/find-a-closed-form-for-sum-k1x-1-a1-k-closed on the question of starting the sum at 1 instead of 0. (Honestly, though, these don't look to me like language difficulties, they look to me like no meaningful attempt has been made to understand the comments being responded to.)
@Harry: looks like we have to add "motivation" to the list of words mathematicians use differently from everyone else
@Anixx: You completely missed the point of my comment...dotdotdotperiodperiodperiod
... --- ...
.. -.. .. --- -
(I prefer when people disclose both identity and background; the first, because I prefer to interact with individuals; the second, because it makes it considerably easier to interact with people, specially in the context of asking and answering questions (I would have thought this last part to be pretty much self-evident...))
I do not have a problem with Will's post. It seems clear to me that Will is not speculating about Anixx's real identity, but explaining why in this case, Anixx's choice of remaining pseudonymous counts against him/her for Will. Whilst I would never have guessed "Wolfram employee", my feelings on this matter are broadly in line with Will and Mariano. It is not that I suspect a pseudonymous/anonymous user of having a shady background, but that, for me, MO is a place to interact with other people in my trade - mathematics - through the medium of mathematical questions. Without knowing even a hint of a name, I find it hard to empathise with the other person.
This doesn't mean that I go round speculating wildly about the other person's identity, but I don't see Will doing that: "My best guess" does not convey, to me, the impression that Will is acting on this speculation nor that he is trying to persuade others of the correctness of his guess (indeed, his post is full of "in my view"-type disqualifiers!). He is trying to explain why he might have voted to close Anixx's question and suggesting ways in which Anixx could remedy the impression Anixx made on Will. It is up to Anixx to decide whether or not Will's good will is something worth having. It is also worth noting that Will's main suggestion is eminently reasonable: write a short article.
So in my view, Will has nothing to apologise for and has, again "in my view", gone much further than I would have done to try to show Anixx how he or she might go about reversing the initial bad impression.
I'm late to the party, but I just wanted to reiterate a few things that came up.
In both cases, going that unnecessary extra mile also makes up for all sorts of sins: asking a slightly confused question, having a "bad attitude" in some way, etc. Finally, it's a well established custom of moderators to come down more heavily on bad behavior of anonymous or pseudonymous accounts; you can avoid this by telling us who you are!
It's Morse code. You haven't missed anything interesting -- mostly just Harry trying to draw attention to himself. Translation available here: http://morsecode.scphillips.com/jtranslator.html (and doubtless elsewhere, too).
mostly just Harry trying to draw attention to himself
False. I wanted people to see my joke about flag semaphore.
Emacs (of course!) has M-x morse-region and M-x unmorse-region. Though it uses a single slash to separate letters within a word.
.../--- ../- -/-.--/.--./../-.-./.-/.-../.-../-.-- --././-././.-./.-/-/./... ---/..-/-/.--./..-/- .-../---/---/-.-/../-./--. .-../../-.-/. -/..../../.../.-.-.-
God bless Emacs, the thermonuclear word-processor. And people wonder why I still insist on using it.
1 to 40 of 40