# Re-Posting on Math.StackExchange

Here is the link to question: Counterexample Required (Standard Notations)

Perhaps it seems that I am being overly impulsive by posting this (and maybe that is right). But after looking at all the downvotes for my question followed by deletion votes, I just want to ask a few questions:

1) Will my question be appropriate for Math.StackExchange. I just want to see an answer (or an interesting/reasonable insight) with regards to my question. I am asking because the suggestion for posting on stackexchange doesn't appear to be in the reasoning mentioned for "on hold". And well, neither did anyone suggest it in comments. Will it be appropriate to re-post there after the question gets closed or deleted here (which seems very likely now).

2) Secondly, for those who have downvoted, or those who thought it was a bad question, can they explain their reasoning? Is it because of the level of question, quality of question or some ambiguity in the question?

• Just the present state: the question is closed, and there are 3 pending reopen votes and 2 pending delete votes. This means that if 2 more people vote to reopen, your question gets reopened -- but if it happens earlier that one more person votes to delete, your question gets deleted. Since there is no answer, the question will be deleted as well if the reopen votes are not cast within a week from now. – Stefan Kohl Jul 21 '17 at 16:52
• @StefanKohl What is the time (number of days) since the original time of posting of a question that a question like this would remain in on-hold/closed state before getting deleted. If your mention of period of week was from the time of posting of (linked) question, then I guess you already answered my question. However, given your wording, I got the impression that perhaps this might not be the case (that is, you meant something different). A clarification would be helpful. – SSequence Jul 25 '17 at 11:32
• As far as I know, a question without answers gets auto-deleted 9 days after being put on hold. But given Todd Trimble's comment, this may be not relevant here (moderators can undelete and reopen, if they deem it appropriate). – Stefan Kohl Jul 25 '17 at 11:54
• OK thanks. You have answered my question about the period/time (till deletion). – SSequence Jul 25 '17 at 12:43
• Addendum: Editing a question apparently postpones autodeletion to a certain extent (but not beyond 30 days after the initial posting of the question) -- see here for the exact criteria. – Stefan Kohl Jul 29 '17 at 9:28
• Well I definitely didn't know about this. Anyway, I don't have any intention of modifying my original post any further (unless there is an actual response, related to question, of some sort). I would recommend people who read the question to spend an hour or two trying to generate a counterexample. An example might be trying one of the simplest cases of two variables (for $\omega$ or little higher for example). I could describe my own similar attempt that doesn't succeed, but it would be more suited as an incomplete/partial answer rather than being posted in question. – SSequence Jul 29 '17 at 10:38
• The place to ask whether a question is suitable for math.stackexchange is on their meta, not this one. – Gerry Myerson Aug 2 '17 at 8:44
• I was also trying to inquire where was the issue with question (why was it not deemed suitable for here). If the question is trivial then someone can explain a trivial counterexample. I have thought about it a fair bit, and I have not succeeded in generating any counterexample (mentioned in question) so far. What I can assure you is that it is a genuine question. If I had generated one myself successfully, I would never have posted the question here. – SSequence Aug 2 '17 at 9:01
• Thanks to everyone for responding. I think I have gotten an idea of where the problem should lie. When dealing with large enough ordinals, the "timing criterion" would suffer from the usual "diagonalisation" issue it seems (to create a problematic notation). It is likely that there is no easy fix for it. I was looking for issues at very small values (and that's why I didn't think of it earlier). While I have not fully ascertained it yet, it seems likely to be the case. – SSequence Aug 2 '17 at 16:58
• Since the question has been recently bumped anyway, I have added (specific-question) tag. See the tag-info for details about this tag and when it should be used. (Of course, if you think that the tag is not suitable here, feel free to revert my edit.) – Martin Sleziak Sep 1 '17 at 5:38
• The problem was sort of resolved (as I mentioned in the comment just above there were some mistakes in formulation of original question). As I understand looking-up a bit, it seems that the bump is automatic (and perhaps would have been avoided if I had upvoted the answer). Anyway, this is the link to the modified version of question: mathoverflow.net/questions/279199/…. I already posted this link in comments below the answer. Posting it here for visibility (since the thread has been bumped anyway). – SSequence Sep 1 '17 at 8:58

Its not suitable for math.SE either. The reason stated for closing/hold is that it is off topic and it is quite evident due to your terminology being in some other field (probably computer science). The extent of terminology is so much that it is not very obvious to translate this into a math problem. Translating to a math problem is not the job of a mathematician although he often does in cases where it is obvious. So if you think your problem needs assistance from a mathematician, then you must translate it into a math problem, and pose it using math terminology. Simple.

• If the programs thing is confusing, simply think of finite number of variables that can only increase in certain way (apart from being brought to 0 immediately) and whose values on limits have three simple rules: (1)The variables increase continuously on limits (if no sequence of 0's). (2) If there is a sequence of 0's going into a limit set the value of variable as 0 on limit. (3) If on a limit (say $p$) a value of variable also evaluates to $p$ it is turned to 0 by force (at $p$). This is also mentioned below the timing crietion heading. A single counterexample will answer question. – SSequence Aug 2 '17 at 8:55
• Ah, then delete this messy post. Write down what your problem is, write what you already know, then figure out what you are stuck with, condense that part and post it as a separate question. Dont give history/intentions/motivations etc. Just post the mathematical subproblem alone. – Rajesh Dachiraju Aug 2 '17 at 9:22
• The main reason for giving writing the whole post this way was to emphasize that I am fairly convinced that point-(1) of counterexample (just before the Edit: in my question) won't apply (this is not a trivial point though probably not that complicated either). That particular point is more easily understood using programs. Also when I described the two rules of evaluation of $Value_v(t)$ under the heading of (A) Programs those two rules are just more precise description of first two points in comment above. – SSequence Aug 2 '17 at 9:41
• Just write only the core problem you want help with, in the main post. Write a good title for the question. and forget it until someone finds it interesting and comes back to you. Then you can/discuss with him/her in comments or in a chat room. This is how it works on this forum Don't assume everyone is interested in your problem to the extent you are. Don't try to teach everyone via your Question either. – Rajesh Dachiraju Aug 2 '17 at 9:47
• I certainly don't intend to "teach" anyone here heh (I am very far away from that point). The purpose was to make the question clearer. You are right about everything else. In hindsight, I probably should have written the shorter description first perhaps (but what I tried to mention is that a lot of points would still be duplicated in that). My main issue is just with close (which I feel is not justified unless someone proves that question is trivial with a silly counterexample). Because that would delete the question (and hence very few people would be able to see it). – SSequence Aug 2 '17 at 9:55
• Post it as separate question. Delete the current one. Trust me its a mess. – Rajesh Dachiraju Aug 2 '17 at 9:58
• Regarding rest of your post, you have good points. I will consider them. I assumed chatrooms are only available beyond a certain reputation. Nevertheless, a link regarding how they work would be quite appreciated. Regarding re-posting of question, I think I will wait to see what mods have to say about that. I get your point. – SSequence Aug 2 '17 at 9:58
• @SSequence : By 'teaching', i don't mean any preaching or argument or in any bad way. You are admittedly trying to educate the readers about some hunch you have (importantly you admittedly don't have proof), which is causing very bad experience for the readers as they are exposed to unproven opinion(however accurate it probably might turn out) even before they comprehend and digest the question, which is a bad way to present a mathematical piece of work. My advice is to write the problem in a crisp way without using too many adjectives or persuasion. – Rajesh Dachiraju Aug 8 '17 at 13:52
• @SSequence : Remember, the answer need to be persuasive but not the problem statement. For example of a crisp question (shameless self promotion though) see this one of mine : mathoverflow.net/q/273739/14414 – Rajesh Dachiraju Aug 8 '17 at 13:52
• @SSequence : Well I just learnt that you posted it as a seperate question, which is resonably well recieved and has gotten a nice answer. Why not mention that here. – Rajesh Dachiraju Aug 8 '17 at 14:00
• Well the question I posted just few days ago is different from the question in OP. I didn't write it explicitly, but if you read one of my comments (below the OP), I basically found the answer to my own question. Basically I could still make a sub-question out of the question in OP but I don't think it would be that interesting (but still difficult probably). The sub-question is much more specific/limited and I am not that interested in it for now (and anyway it might be better to post a sub-question like that on SE first anyway). – SSequence Aug 8 '17 at 14:48
• I think there is a general issue with posting a question where you have to define (or make explicit) a number of basic notions. Because as the question gets longer, I think the reader starts to think whether reading such long explanations would be worth their time or not (excluding the case where the OP has high rep). And few negative votes are enough to create the perception that it isn't. That's just for longer questions though. – SSequence Aug 8 '17 at 15:14
• You got it. And number of edits makes it even worse. Btter to delete than be defensive – Rajesh Dachiraju Aug 8 '17 at 15:36
• Thats what i meant by terminology in my answer. – Rajesh Dachiraju Aug 8 '17 at 15:36