5:55 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Mostly non-Latin body: I want to obtain a MATLAB plot for given equation. by GSS on math.SE

9 hours later…
2:45 PM
It seems okay to undelete the second one and then merge the two. — John Ma 16 mins ago
@JohnMa I am not sure whether the merging is still needed, since the linked question has been reopened. In any case, I have edited the deleted one - so that the notation is the same and they can be merged: Solve \$f(x)f(2x^2) = f(2x^3+x)\$ (Of course, the edit can be reverted if they are not going to be merged.) — Martin Sleziak 7 mins ago
My feeling is that merging give the question a little bit more protection from closure deletion, since the deleted one provides more contexts. @martinsleziak — John Ma 1 min ago
@JohnMa I have cast the first undelete vote on 2600903: Solve \$f(x)f(2x^2) = f(2x^3+x)\$. So maybe we should get the question undeleted and then flag for merging - at that point it's up to the mods.
Or we could directly flag for mods - without undeletion. Whichever you think is better.
You are probably right that 2600903 has better chance to "survive" (i.e., not to be closed for missing context).
The above is related to the question 1118030: Polynomial equation \$f(x)f(2x^2)=f(2x^3+x)\$ which was recently closed and reopened. The reopening came after this request in the reopen request thread.
BTW the question 2600903 (the one which is currently deleted) was mentioned in this room before. chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/2165?m=42218323#42218323

1 hour later…
4:03 PM
Hi @AndrésE.Caicedo - it is quite rare occurrence to see you here in chat. I've seen that you commented on the suggestion to create paraconsistency tag. If there's something more which should be discussed about that, probably tagging chat room might be a suitable place.

1 hour later…
5:12 PM
PSQ to close. One more close vote needed. @user21820 @Did, @
... @ZacharySelk, @JohnMa,

5:48 PM

6:00 PM

2 hours later…
8:18 PM
this ought to be reopened
Is there a finite set of divergent limits such that all complex number linear combinations of them span all divergent and convergent limits? [closed]

@TheGreatDuck You may consider posting this on this thread, but remember to state clearly why you think one should un-delete and reopen that (instead of just say this ought to be reopen...).

8:41 PM
I think this question should be reopened, as this question was closed as being a duplicate of this current one. (So a "good" question is a duplicate of a "bad" question...) — user1729 7 hours ago
@user1729 Your parenthesis indicates that the present question should be closed for blatant lack of context while the other you link to, should be reopened... Or did I miss something? — Did 3 hours ago
@Did Suggestion along the same lines was made by John Ma - see the comments under the post on meta and also in this chatroom.
At the moment the other question has two undelete votes.
If we want to merge them, we will need the mods anyway - but I wanted to see first whether other users have similar opinion. (From your comment above I guess that you would consider the linked question - which is deleted at the moment - as the more suitable duplicate target.)
Probably I should have flagged the question for merging just based on above - Did's comments and John Ma's comment probably show sufficient support for merging. But since I brought up it here in chat, I'll wait a bit to see whether I get some additional feedback (from Did or from other users.)

9:11 PM
@MartinSleziak Indeed. Just common sense, afaiac.

Ok. So I am going to flag the post for merging into the older one (which has more context).
After that it's mainly up to the mods.
Thanks for the response!

9:51 PM
@Did, @ZacharySelk, @JohnMa, @user21820, @SimplyBeautifulArt, @XanderHenderson Bare PSQ, "balls and bins", "solve it for me".

@MartinSleziak The two posts are now merged: math.stackexchange.com/posts/1118030/revisions and math.stackexchange.com/posts/2600903/revisions Thanks goes to Daniel Fischer.

@MartinSleziak Nice work, again! Thanks goes to you, as well!

10:15 PM

1 hour later…
11:24 PM