@KyleKanos Well in the lecture of EMI Proffesor W.Lewin clearly says that KVL requires conservative field.Its around 33:50

@ChrisWhite haha

hello @ManishEarth

o/

whats new?

@ChrisWhite I'm mostly on /r/rust, but sometimes I stray

nothing much

i have just been answering questions on chem and bio

Hey, exactly 1000 profile views and 256 helpful flags. Nice.

@Danu Searching for interesting numbers again? ;)

Looking for it, it seems I have missed the moment when I had 1000 views

@ACuriousMind Casually one-upping me? ;)

Oh, I would never ... yeah, I guess I am

...but do you have more flags? ;) hahaha

@Danu Nah, you're leading there :P

Do you even nitpick, bro? :)

"Check my work" questions are considered off-topic on this site. That's probably why this question is voted down.

@DanielSank I thought simply asking a question without an attempt was frowned upon?

@user5027: The policy on this site is really hard to understand. I've been poking around the meta and chat to try to figure this out, but frankly, even as a frequent user, I still don't understand it. I would strongly recommend you made a specific, well worded and presented post on the meta insisting that the people who closed your question explain exactly why it happened.

@user5027: It's likely that people will point to the requirement that homework-like questions ask about a specific "concept", but there are so many other questions on this site that don't do that and are not closed that I am still at a loss as to what the criteria actually are (if there are any really consistent criteria).

@DanielSank Good rule of thumb: if the question is not useful to someone else, it is off-topic.

@Bernhard saying that this question is not useful to someone else is a huge generalization. Looking at examples of a particular topic could potentially help someone else apply what they may know to something else, which could essentially help them build upon what they already know.Someone might also have a question similar to this one and they could apply what they learned from this to their own individual questions.

@Bernhard: That is well put. Thanks. I must say though, that there are frequently questions which are qualitatively just like this one in that they ask e.g. "Am I right that this integral doesn't converge" but are not closed. I suspect that it's because the high rep users here are in an area of research where they find that particular integral interesting.

@DanielSank Well, in some questions it is better hidden, because they are well phrases, and write the equations with some effort on the LaTeX. This will at least delay the close voting a bit. In any case, if you think a question should be closed, please flag it!

@user5027 What did you do to find similar questions?

@Bernhard: Actually, for the most part I think these questions should not be closed. More importantly, I think the rules ought to be consistent and the information given to the asker of the closed question should be as helpful as possible. The problem now is that the close reason says that there needs to be "effort" and evidence of physics "concepts". The former is well-satisfied here. The latter is the troubling one, because it's vague and not met by many well-received posts on this site.

@DanielSank or there's a good chance it's because nobody noticed those questions. If you see questions that should be put on hold (according to the policy) and you don't flag them (or vote to close, once you reach 3k reputation), you're contributing to the problem, you know ;-)

If your flags are getting declined, then yeah, perhaps people are being inconsistent, and in that case you should certainly go to meta and ask for clarification on why.

I just reached the.... vague topology. Whoa, really?

@Danu : Do you mean weak topology?

No, vague

Also known as the $\text{weak}-*$ topology

@DavidZ: The problem is that I don't understand the policy. I mean, there's the letter of the law and there's the practical implementation (precedence) and common sense (spirit of the law). I tend to be a spirit of the law person but as of this writing I don't understand what the spirit of the law on this site actually is. There are some meta posts currently up about this. I've been following and commenting on them.

Ah, yes: vague topology.

the topology induces by the elements of $X$ on $X^*$

I have no idea what I'm reading right now :)

Also, I get what you're saying about contributing to the problem by not flagging, but as I said, I do not think most of those questions should be closed. Therefore I'm not really adding to the problem by not flagging. On the other hand, I have been quite vocally fighting to open several questions I think should not have been closed in the first place. So, I think I'm doing the right thing and contributing in good faith.

let's hope that these serious topological notions aren't important (my reading list skips this chapter on topological spaces... so maybe I'm in luck)

@Danu: Y'know, the more you talk about what you are reading about topology, the less I am sure I know topology :D

Ah, at least I'm not alone then :D

really though... I hope this is not what I'll be doing for the next two years

@DanielSank Well, there's a whole separate issue of whether a member should flag/VTC questions prohibited by a policy they don't agree with, but let's not get into that here

As I understand it, you seem to be complaining that questions which you think violate the homework policy are left open, and I'm saying that the reason they are left open may be as simple as the fact that nobody noticed them to put them on hold.

If that's a correct assessment, then you are contributing to the very same problem which you identified, namely that questions which violate the policy do not get closed.

That leads me to think that I don't correctly understand your objections. Even after all the discussion you raised, I'm not clear on exactly what you think needs to be changed. Could you explain again?