CURED - 2016-01-26

« first day (1475 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3013 days later) »

1:18 AM

[ SmokeDetector ] All-caps answer: Anti-symmetric and non-singular matrix by Tsemo Aristide on math.stackexchange.com

1:42 AM

[ SmokeDetector ] All-caps answer: Anti-symmetric and non-singular matrix by Algebraic Pavel on math.stackexchange.com

11 hours later…

Michael Albanese

1:00 PM

Why was this question closed as a duplicate of this question?

The newer question is a duplicate of the older one. I can closing the older one as a duplicate of the newer one if the newer question and its answers were better than the old one, but I don't think that's the case here (full disclosure, I answered the older question).

I am also curious as to how this happened because I voted to close the newer one as a duplicate of the older one.

1 hour later…

Martin Sleziak

2:26 PM

It seems the newer question was closed (as a duplciate) and reopened: math.stackexchange.com/posts/1626025/revisions

I do not know how much influence comment like these had. (I hope that this site does not work this way.)

@Michael A;banese please have a look at my question now. I've made it more specific. — Saaqib Mahmuud 23 hours ago

@Arthur would you like to close my question even now? Please have a look now? I've editted it to make it more specific. — Saaqib Mahmuud 23 hours ago

@MATHEMATIKER please have a look at my question now. I'm sure you'd like to re-open it! — Saaqib Mahmuud 23 hours ago

@Did can you please now re-open my question now? — Saaqib Mahmuud 23 hours ago

Relevant reviews seem to be these ones:

math.stackexchange.com/review/close/564588

math.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/564205

math.stackexchange.com/review/close/564038

I think that Did's comment summarizes situation quite well:

@SaaqibMahmuud The edit I can see is that you added "Please also refer to this link" at the end of your post, linking to the question indicated as a duplicate. How does this edit makes the question more specific? Did you even read Michael Albanese's answer there before asking for reopening here? If you did, which parts of your question are not fully answered there? To me, instantly asking for reopening without any substantial modification of the question smells like a clear abuse of the site, so please, convince me it is not. — Did 19 hours ago

Also if I am not mistaken, the it was Did's edit which put the question into the reopen review queue. Since in was the first edit after the question was put on hold; see here.

Martin Sleziak

2:45 PM

@MichaelAlbanese I am willing to vote to reopen the older one and then cast the duplicate close voted in the opposite direction that it is now. But I will wait bit to see what other users have to say about this.

And the question can also be considered non-duplicates, if we understand the new question is specifically about this particular identity:

@MichaelAlbanese using the terminology of the first answer to the question on the page whose link you've sent me, how do I prove that $$fgfgfgfg S = fgfg S?$$ — Saaqib Mahmuud yesterday

Michael Albanese

Thanks for your thorough research @MartinSleziak.

Martin Sleziak

Although if the new post is supposed to be only about this, it should be clarified by the OP in the text of the post. (At the moment, it seems unclear to me whether the main question is the formulation of the problem at the beginning of his post or the two equalities stated in the end of the question.)

Michael Albanese

I feel that the sort of behaviour displayed in the comments of the newer question is not great.

I also feel that the question has failed to clarify this.

If it is a different question, fine, but that should be clear. If not, I think it should be closed as the duplicate.

Martin Sleziak

Yes.

But it is not possible to have two questions closed as a duplicate of each other.

The SE software prevents creating cycles of duplicate questions.

So the older question has to be reopened first, if it has to be closed as a duplicate of the older one.

Michael Albanese

Sorry, that's what I meant.

Or at least, that's what should have happened.

Martin Sleziak

2:58 PM

Users Jon Mark Perry, Travis, user 1, Yiorgos S. Smyrlis, bof: Why the vote to reopen? — Did 13 mins ago

@SaaqibMahmuud If your question is about the general problem stated at the beginning, then it is definitely a duplicate. (So I do not think it should have been reopened.) If your main questions is about the two equalities stated at the end of the current version of your post (namely $f(g(f(g(f(g(f(g(A)))))))) = f(g(f(g(A))))$ and $g(f(g(f(g(f(g(f(A)))))))) = g(f(g(f(A))))$) then perhaps it is not a duplicate. However, if this is the case, you should make this clearer in your post. — Martin Sleziak 2 mins ago

Anyway, I have case my vote to reopen the older one.

We will see what the other users do.

Michael Albanese

Thanks for your help.

Martin Sleziak

3:45 PM

@MichaelAlbanese The question went to the review queue and it has been reopened.

As far as the other question is concerned, I am willing to give the OP the doubt and assume that he in fact asks about proofs of the two equalities I mentioned in my last comment. (Also the accepted answer suggests that this might be the case.)

Of course, other users might have a different opinion and vote to close the newer question as a duplicate of the older one again.

Martin Sleziak

4:07 PM

I am a bit confused by this suggested edit on meta. When I am in the review, I do not see any changes. I only see: "Comment: added 3 characters in body" and then "4 identical lines skipped".

« first day (1475 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3013 days later) »

all rooms