tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Possible premature closure)

quid comments on "Possible premature closure" (21881)

quid — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:10:04 -0700

No if the delay is that large my argument does not apply (I'd say 35 days is about the max for it; 2+a little for the first, then 30days on the delete-votes lists). Perhaps 'almost always' was an exageration; I reduce it to 'mainly'. Yet, I agree, there is certainly a risk of oversights for deletetion. For me, because as opposed to closure (for the most part), I do it (when I do it, not so much lately) mainly following a list of question were this (ie, possibly delete them) is the point of looking at them, and not by navigating to the question for another motivation.

bsteinberg comments on "Possible premature closure" (21880)

bsteinberg — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:23:53 -0700

Some questions do get deleted some time after they appear. For example, Homotopy and Fundamental Group theory was from Jan and was just deleted 2 days ago. I don't know when the first delete vote was cast. Anyway, this is not a major point. Most deletions I have seen seem appropriate. I think the example I had given above of an almost deleted question was an oversight because people assumed a duplicate question could not have a good answer.

François G. Dorais comments on "Possible premature closure" (21879)

François G. Dorais — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:06:33 -0700

As Bill said, questions with substantive answers are not to be deleted unless there are egregious circumstances. If you are aware of a question with substantive answer that has been deleted, let the moderators know.

quid comments on "Possible premature closure" (21878)

quid — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:04:43 -0700

@bsteinberg: but it seems to me almost always at least the first vote to delete is cast either essentially immediatelly (as soon as possible) or never; if the question is off the recent close list, which happens rather quickly, (and not on the voted to delete list) who should pay any attention to it. It would have to be a coincidence someone happens to stumble over it later.

By the way, I found the Q&A you must refer to; it is still around. I think what you did then, leaving a comment against deletion, is a good way to proceed in such a case.

bsteinberg comments on "Possible premature closure" (21877)

bsteinberg — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:22:40 -0700

If somebody gives a good answer to a question and starts a thread that the answer should stay open, then I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I also agree that closed should not be equal to deleted. My fear is that some time down the future this particular question may be deleted because it looks like at first sight like one of those obvious delete questions (including being closed as off-topic), in part because the OP is not writing in the style of a professional mathematician. But Douglas found an interesting mathematical question here and if people do not read what he wrote carefully then I can imagine this question being deleted in a month or so after this discussion is forgotten.

For example I remember a question that had 2 delete votes (I never checked whether it was deleted) asking for examples where Cech cohomology differed from derived functor cohomology. It was closed as a duplicate because it was previously asked and answered with an example from schemes. But before the second version was closed, David Roberts gave an example not coming from algebraic geometry which received several upvotes and which answered in some sense better the original version where the OP had asked in particular for examples coming from algebraic topology and not algebraic geometry. So I think that sometime squestions get delete votes with reasonable answers. It obviously is time consuming to really check carefully each closed question to decide if it should be deleted or not.

quid comments on "Possible premature closure" (21876)

quid — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:08:50 -0700

@geraldedgar: in my opinion such a general statement is unhelpful in particular when referring to something most users cannot oversee themselves. In addition, even for me, knowing who deletes what, it is quite unclear what you want to express in particular in this context.

geraldedgar comments on "Possible premature closure" (21875)

geraldedgar — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:45:46 -0700

@Ryan: I agree. Some questions should be closed but not deleted. But there are some trigger-happy deleters who need to be convinced of this.

Ryan Budney comments on "Possible premature closure" (21873)

Ryan Budney — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:17:37 -0700

@bsteinberg: You are asking us to make a false choice: that a question must either be kept open or deleted. There are criteria for deleting that are quite different from closing.

Bill Johnson comments on "Possible premature closure" (21872)

Bill Johnson — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:08:17 -0700

Closed questions with substantive answers are generally not deleted.

quid comments on "Possible premature closure" (21871)

quid — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:36:12 -0700

AFAIK, on the reals measurable is not minimal, (at least) majorizabilty [or minorabilty] on a set of positive measure by a measurable function suffices.

Douglas Zare comments on "Possible premature closure" (21870)

Douglas Zare — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:13:07 -0700

The usual conditions that I remember seeing which ensure that an additive function on the reals is linear are continuity or local boundedness. I was pleasantly surprised to see measurability as a condition when I was writing my answer. The question asks what the minimal condition is. Perhaps someone can say whether measurability is essentially minimal.

bsteinberg comments on "Possible premature closure" (21869)

bsteinberg — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:05:57 -0700

If the question is closed then it is likely to be eventually deleted, whereas if it remains open and answered then Douglas's answer will remain.

quid comments on "Possible premature closure" (21868)

quid — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:02:21 -0700

While I do not vote to close anymore myself, I would still like to go on record as saying that this seems like a prime example of a question that should be sent to math.SE.

Henry Cohn comments on "Possible premature closure" (21867)

Henry Cohn — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:39:13 -0700

What's the argument for re-opening? The question has already been answered, and in any case it's not a research-level question so it would make more sense on MSE.

bsteinberg comments on "Possible premature closure" (21866)

bsteinberg — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:31:24 -0700

I was the first to vote to close and I admit I didn't read the question the way Douglas did. I hadn't interpreted it as really looking for a proof in complete generality but more like looking for confirmation that this is not a general phenomenon. I think the tone, the username, etc made me quickly read it as a mathstackexchange type question. I'll vote to reopen.

Ryan Budney comments on "Possible premature closure" (21865)

Ryan Budney — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:13:48 -0700

I think closure is appropriate for this question. Even if the question was clearly stated, it would be most appropriate for math.stackexchange.com.

Will Jagy comments on "Possible premature closure" (21864)

Will Jagy — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:39:06 -0700

I left a comment. Here or at mse, it is not clear how he is using the word average, as it comes up in several ways that do not seem compatible.

Douglas Zare comments on "Possible premature closure" (21863)

Douglas Zare — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:18:11 -0700

I managed to answer this question before it was closed:

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/127641/can-you-prove-that-averagefx-is-not-equal-to-faveragex-for-non-linear-f-i

I can see arguments for closing it, and the asker probably isn't in a position to understand the answer. However, I think the question is ok, it was just not asked in a polished fashion.