1
$\begingroup$

I posed this question two days ago, which effectively asks "Has X hard-to-describe special case on Barnette's Conjecture been proven?". In retrospect, I believe it was a poor question.

What I now think would be better would to be to ask for a list of papers which subcases of Barnette's Conjecture, and then sort through them all on my own, to see if they match watch what I've found. To my knowledge, I've only found two papers which would belong in my list. The rest are either computational results or equivalence results.

Is my second question actually better? If so, should I rewrite my current question, or ask a second one?

||||||
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think what you want is a carefully worded reference request. I recommend indicating what work you have done, and if you used citation searches as well. (If I find it, I will post a link to a similar kind of meta question.) Probably better than references are names of researchers you can contact who might be interested in sharing progress with you. Gerhard "Ask For Help By Name" Paseman, 2020.02.07. $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Feb 8 at 0:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I often recommend the "revise" option , but in the present case, given that there was no negative feedback (downvotes/closure votes/ comments complaining that it's unclear), that the question was quite detailed, a revision would sound like a deletion of the original post + new post. Also I tend to generally like precise questions rather than only-reference-request, or open ended questions. Given all this I'd rather like the option of a new question. $\endgroup$ – YCor Feb 8 at 2:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .