cs.stackexchange.com/questions/44889/…

There is no reason to have that question closed.

It is a good question, but the owner decided to delete it because he thinks he has an answer.

I consider this to be rude behavior as he does not care whether he wasted the time of other people. and it is not the first time he is being rude.

So I need voting support to reopen it (just go to the question and click "undelet" if you see it.

@vzn Since you commented that question (just above, on fuzzy Earley), and seemed interested, could I enlist your support to vote to reopen it.

wow B, not sure where you got your rescuer instincts. agreed there may be some decent question lying around in there somewhere (hence my brief engagement with it) but the questioner probably doesnt really have a clue. & comes off as some surly Programming Puzzles & Code Golfer teenager.

recently had read about DFAs for the edit distance problem in an advanced ref. re the tying in of edit distance to exponential time hypothesis.

?!? the author gives no indication whatsoever "he thinks he has an answer".

@babou It's back again (Gilles reopened half an hour ago). My advice stands: if you know the user to be rude and ungrateful, why bother?

How can we deal with such questions?

It's not a bad question per se, but it does not make sense: it's founded in a fundamental misconception. Unfortunately, it seems to attract people with similar misconceptions, reinforcing the wrong convictions.

Should I edit the question to make sense, i.e. remove the reference to the halting problem? Or should we rely on answers fixing the misconception? (I don't think they do, yet, but I could of course just answer myself.)

@Raphael Misconceptions don't disqualify a question, unless they make it meaningless. Fixing the misconception is the job of answers.

@Gilles In this case here, the question is unrelated to the misconception. If you edited out all but the last sentence/question, it'd be fine (if somewhat SE-bad).

Aaaand, of course, that question went "hot". Grrr.

lol "Grrr"

actually have an interesting advanced ref on subj ran across recently but dont want to bias anyone yet...

@babou Does our exchange here have lasting value?

@Raphael Do you refer to a specific one. I have been working on several, but do have difficulty finishing, often. Old problem of mine. But I do take our exchanges seriously.

@babou what he actually means is he wants to delete it.

@Raphael Sorry Raphael. Bad lighting and I did not see "here" was a link. So I completely misinterpreted your sentence. The answer is no ... you actually already deleted the only item I wanted to keep for a while. So it goes (Kurt Vonnegut). I transcribed what I said into something that hopefully looks like an answer, or a complement to yours. For as much as it makes sense to separate the various aspect of asymptotic analysis. So feel free to delete.

@vzn Thanks for the translation ... tired I guess.

@vzn I think you scared away the Earley guy. To me he was quite clear. But he seem a jittery type. Not really as bad as I first misinterpretd his reaction. Well, one other time I tried to help him, but he never answered my comments. Apparently does not like comments.

@babou me, scary? lol! blame the victim. & can barely follow your answer.

@babou Thanks, cleaning up. (Sorry if I deleted something prematurely.)

@vzn We never know who is the other guy on SE, well, seldom. That is also one reason I don't like downvoting. It does scare some people who rather give up, when they fear it is impending.. We do not all work on the same model.

@babou yeah! ok! great! any idea, what is a "levenshtein automata"? seems like a good answer might cover that :|