[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, no whitespace in body, repeating characters in body (248): Isomorphism between comma categories ✏️‭ by Tomais‭ on math.SE

dupe

@Feeds context still thin , I do not understand the reopen-votes

I genuinely have no idea what “context” is supposed to mean at this point

@Joe reopened

It was an honest question; obviously not lazy; obviously of potential future value, especially if more answers might be added (impossible if the question is closed)

@Peter: You say that you don't understand the reopen votes. I don't understand the close votes. The difference is: I actually explained the reasoning for why I think the question should be reopened, whereas none of the five close voters explained theirs. Nobody on this site is obligated to explain the reasons for why they vote, of course, but I find it a bit ironic that you are incredulous about the reopening, whilst not providing any reasoning for why the post should be closed.

@Joe Without taking sides, every close vote does come with an explanation---you cannot downvote without giving some explanation. Though the explanation will often come in the form of some boilerplate, and may seem obscure.

The same cannot be said for reopen votes---a close voter must give some reason and/or explanation, a reopen voter needn't.

With respect to the specific question being discussed, had I seen it earlier, I likely would have cast a reopen vote. I don't see anything wrong with it. A solid citation is given, and the question about the stated theorem seems clear and narrowly focused. I understand the close votes, but don't necessarily agree with them.

@XanderHenderson I'd distinguish here between an explanation, and reason

The people closing give reason to why they want to close something, but not an explanation

the difference being that the explanation gives a more detailed account on why you are closing something

asking for an elaboration of a close vote, is perfectly reasonable, especially if you've given your point of view already and you see nothing that would oppose that view

This feels (in my opinion) very much like a distinction without a difference.

It is not possible to vote to close a question without giving some feedback to the user (whether you call this a "reason" or an "explanation" or whatever). It is absolutely possible to vote to reopen without giving any feedback.

There is a difference because it implies e.g. that you can infer next to nothing from the combined reasons for close votes, especially with regard to someone objecting to re-opening on an individual level

We can quibble about the value of the feedback given, but the essential fact remains: you cannot vote to close without some explanation / reason / feedback / whatever.

Sure. I mentioned the distinction between explanation and reason, because what you said doesn't quite invalidate what Joe has meant. They meant an actual fleshed-out explanation, and not a reason like you give when taking a vote to close something

I am pretty sure

But the relevant point is still that insisting on closing something without giving an explanation, while someone has given an explanation why they think it shouldn't be closed, is well... it can be puzzling

@Jakobian I mean, you made a distinction between "reason" and "explanation", but Joe's comment talks both about reasons and explanations. And I maintain that it is impossible to vote to close without giving some kind of reason or explanation. This might just be boilerplate, and we can discuss how useful that boilerplate is, but a close voter cannot procede without, at minimum, checking a box to say "I am voting to close this question for [reason]."

@XanderHenderson and I agree with everything you said here.

However I don't see where the but comes in. It doesn't invalidate the distinction

Giving an explanation, is giving reasons for something according to my definition

and according to what I believe is, common usage of these words

You are quibbling about semantics. This is going nowhere.

I am pointing out how you misunderstood Joe and that your point, while brilliant and true, didn't actually matter here

An old PSQ, with enough upvotes to prevent deletion.

@XanderHenderson sir, do you think this should be in hot network questions? math.stackexchange.com/questions/4956009/…

@XanderHenderson what can be done about those? I can’t cast any delete vote. I tried downvoting to see if it would now let me, but it doesn’t. But I also recall seeing highly upvoted posts deleted before.

Though dare I say, this one is worth deleting not for being a lazy PSQ but for having no closed form answer and being from a mistaken question. Had it actually received a good, informative answer helpful for other people, it should have been maintained

@FShrike I believe that people with under 20k XP cannot vote to delete until the question has be closed for two days.

I have 40k XP.

@FShrike Then perhaps everyone has to wait two days.

It has been a long time since I've had to know what the various thresholds are (the diamond gives you phenomenal cosmic powers---it is hard to know what powers come when).

@FShrike @XanderHenderson There is likely some threshold, since the system allows me to do so.

Oh, never mind, misread

Dv/D PSQ & dupe of FAQ, nothing novel, frequent high rep PSQ/dupe answerers