Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 11 of 11
I think the question should be reopened, now that the author has clarified that the trivial cases are excluded from consideration. What do people think of undeleting and locking the answer now that it says something useful?
Scott, Doug Zare's comment that this isn't a research-level question has seven upvotes. It seems (to me at least) like the question needs to be improved if there's going to be much motivation to reopen.
While I agree in general with wanax that answers with significant contribution from others should not be deleted, I think his/her comment on the answer is counter-productive. If the question is reopened at all may I suggest that the comment be removed?
Ryan, it is far from clear that those seven upvotes are for the "not research-level" sentence rather than the "It's disappointing to see the trivial answers of magnitude less than 1 repeated." or the actual mathematical content.
1 minute later: I see that the question as written has the straightforward answer "yes", but one could reasonably edit it to a question about the properties of the set of such reals, and then it becomes substantially less trivial (as Wanax indicates).
Sure, but it isn't Wanax's question. It's up to the question-asker to ask the question they want to ask. Wanax could always ask the less trivial question Wanax refers to, rather than people manipulating the original question to be what they want.
I have undeleted the answer, and deleted Wanax's comment, but the question remains closed. If there is nothing else to discuss, perhaps this discussion can be closed as well.
Before you close the discussion, do let me register that I don't think the question should be re-opened without more improvements. I have left some comments in this direction on the original question.
Except that right now, the question itself is locked. Does this prevent also the OP from editing it?
Anyway, the answer is probably the best possible, so the whole discussion is somewhat moot.
IMO, the owner of a CW answer should still have some control. In particular, I think that in this case it should be Mark Sapir who decides whether he wants this completely rewritten answer attached to his profile; I can see reasons why he would not want this.
(If somebody thinks the answer should be preserved, it could be recreated, unlock, open, answer, reclose.
A bit complicated but doable.)
Whether or not it was a good idea to give the answer originally is orthogonal to this;
but IMO editing an answer to turn it into something completely different was against standard etiquette in the first place. (I did not see the deleted comment.)