Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Well, it's not spam in the sense of unsolicited email. It is, however, written with blatant disregard for both the explicit and unwritten rules of how the site works. You can't just write down a bunch of unmotivated formulas, not explaining where they came from and ask whether they are in the literature or not; do you even know if they are true? It's unclear from what you've written. If you want a good answer, you have to put real work into explaining what you want to know and what context that fits into. There's no reason you can't ask questions about whether a particular identity is known or not, but you should do it one (or maybe one class) at a time, and there should be sentences in the question.
Well, you should say that explicitly in your post, as well as why (have you written proofs? Are they easy? Hard?). That's just an example of important context you've left out.
Isn't Ben's explanation above satisfying? Odds are Andy's would differer little from it.
Steven, Ben hasn't asked for proofs. It appears to me he's just asking for context, and I think that's pretty reasonable. Putting in a word or two explaining what a formula means, so that it's intelligible to a typical mathematician would be a good thing.
My impression is we generally expect people to write-up their question rather than asking people to read an entire paper before a post makes sense.
Steven, we've had many very long discussion threads with Anixx on this forum before. It's not clear to me if you're familiar with them but here are a few. A google search will provide you with more:
http://tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1032/why-people-downvote-the-only-correct-answer/
http://tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/742/why-my-answer-to-this-question-was-deleted/
http://tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/756/tetration/
I suspect Anixx is a little stubborn, knows and understands the concerns people are raising, but simply refuses to address the general standards people want to see on MO.
I think you're correct in that Anixx is not a crank -- I believe there are several MO users that know him personally. I do not. I think the forum is tolerant of many eccentricities among posters but my general impression is people want to hold the line on the posting of giant formulas with little context. I generally agree with this seeming consensus.
@Anixx
I did not vote on the question, but although I think there are several (yes, several) perhaps interesting questions in there, they are not presented in an appealing manner.
The notation $\Pi_x$ and $\Sigma_x$ is not explained. You clearly cannot be taking the summation over all $\mathbb{R}$. Thus $x$ is presumably an integer, and possibly a non-negative or positive integer. Also the summation range may vary between equations.
$\psi^{(n)}(x)$ is not explained, though if it is a standard function, it might be helpful to say what it is.
If these equations are the result of your work, Anixx, please say so, and perhaps provide some information on how you found these. I would be happy to see (focussed) questions about this topic if these issues were addressed. Note that splitting each equation into a single question with little motivation might not go down well.
EDIT: Perhaps linking to a reference/definition of your discrete (multiplicative) integrals would help. I'm not interested enough to search it out myself, but if you provided a link, I might follow it.
I have to agree with some people above that calling it "spam" is a bit extreme... while agreeing that the question could stand improvement.
Suppose MathOverflow had been around about 100 years ago and Ramanujan posted a bunch of his formulas, asking if they were already known. Would his question have been closed as 'spam'? (Of course, something like that did happen -- his stuff wound up in some trash bins before Hardy and Littlewood entered the story.)
They laughed at Fulton?
Gerry, it looks like you misunderstood my point. It seems that the main objections to the question were based on its form, not its content. Right? And that form (of listing formulas without explanation) bears some comparison to the form adopted by Ramanujan, even if there is no comparison in terms of sheer brilliance in content.
As I said, I thought the presentation could be improved (and arguably this could be said of Ramanujan too). But I don't think that "spam" is quite fair. I think I agree with what Steven Gubkin has said.
Did Ramanujan write in that style when communicating with others?
I would have thought that the famous diaries, with its lists of extraordinary formulas, were not intended to be read by anyone but him...
Google books gives me the first 4 pages of Ramanujan's letter. Even if later pages are merely filled with formulas, there is a decent amount of text to start with. But Todd has a point. The exposition could be improved (and it would have been better to improve it based on comments before all this escalated) but on the face of it there is a question there. Making the title relevant would have attracted the attention of experts quicker. And now we have an answer to the actual question.
But I bow out of this conversation, I have said my piece, and add my voice to gata's first post.
@MO Scribe: before concluding the formulas are new, one should consult a large number of papers that can be found in MathSciNet ... for example, likely titles:
Sofo, Anthony, Sums in terms of polygamma functions. Bull. Math. Anal. Appl. 2 (2010), no. 3, 40–52.
Boros, George; Espinosa, Olivier; Moll, Victor H. On some families of integrals solvable in terms of polygamma and negapolygamma functions. Integral Transforms Spec. Funct. 14 (2003), no. 3, 187–203.
Nishimoto, Katsuyuki; Tu, Shih Tong Fractional calculus of psi functions (generalized polygamma functions). J. Fract. Calc. 5 (1994), 27–34.
@Mariano: Fulton, not Fulton. See also, They All Laughed.
1 to 36 of 36