One more closure vote needed: math.stackexchange.com/q/3128988

And this PSQ has been reopened. Maybe someone is trying to save the bounty points.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at end of answer (60): How do I get the equality $\sum_{l-s}^{l+s}(2j+1) = (2l+1)(2s+1)?$ by adsasd on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at end of answer (60): How do I get the equality $\sum_{l-s}^{l+s}(2j+1) = (2l+1)(2s+1)?$ by adsasd on math.SE

@Saad Bounty points are not taken away even if the thread is deleted. Even more, unlike rep gained from upvotes, self-deleting an answer also does not result in losing a bounty awarded to it. That said, I personally would let this PSQ stay since it is almost surely purely out of curiosity.

@Saad Closed.

@RRL All gone.

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9, D10.

C1, C2, C3,

C4, C5, C6, C7.

Needs one more close-vote.

@user21820 It's enlightening to know that. Btw, I've run out of deletion votes after the previous wave of deletion :/

@user21820: Thanks.

cv-pls prime-numbers I think that the law of small numbers is at play here... Can i be pointed towards good articles on the Prime Number Thorem?‭ - rotciv123‭ 2019-03-13 04:39:49Z

@Saad I will just add that if a question which had bounty is deleted, then the reputation points are returned to the user who offered the bounty.

@Saad There is also a meta discussion about the linked question 3135015 Is the rectangular function a convolution of $L^1$ functions?. It's here: Mysterious question closure. (Although I suppose you are aware of that.)

@XanderHenderson Let's just say it's not the law of small numbers but the law of popular fads. Lol.

D3 was missing a slash in the URL just now.

Reopen because it's far better than the duplicate and has a complete answer.

Bad PSQ

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] No whitespace in title (63): Associocommutativity ✏️ by Solomon Ucko on math.SE

reopen Finding f(x) when given a composite function? ? Context and solution attempt has been added.

It seems that several users voted to leave closed in the first pass through the reopen review queue. However, from the timestamps it seems that it entered the review queue in this form.

This is an example why it's better not to do minor edits on questions that were recently put on hold (and leave the chance to improve the post for the OP). Meta: Should I avoid minor edit of a question which was put on hold?

@MartinR @MartinSleziak: I've cast the last reopen-vote.

@user21820 It is really really bad pedagogically to choose dupe targets based on the quality of the question. The target I chose has much better and more diverse answers. If you care so much about the quality of the question then maybe you should ask for a merge,

@BillDubuque You said in a comment "Normally I'd close this as a dupe, but some folks keep deleting the prior versions so there are no dupe targets! If someone manages to find a good target please ping me.". I thought it strange that when you yourself found a good target, you didn't close it as dupe as per your comment, but rather closed it the other way around.

I see no reason why you couldn't just post you excellent answer to the better question and close the bad one as dupe.

@user21820 Students generally don't read answers posted to (very) old questions. If you want answers to FAQs to get visibility to reduce the "eternal September barrage" then when there is no strong reason to prefer the old thread (and strong reason to prefer the new such as better and more diverse answers). it is better to close the old as a dupe of the new.

Sorry I disagree, and what I said is strange is still strange.

I have no idea what you find "strange"

Never mind.

Maybe some context will help you better understand. I put a lot of effort into organizing ENT, linking related questions, generalization, specializations, etc, I have very long TODO list, which includes concepts on this topic. When you keep deleting these questions (based on "quality" of the question) it completely messes up the link graph I am building. Often I have to restart from scratch, e.g. this new question may end up as an abstract dupe target until I can find another one.

Unless it too gets deleted ... and the nonsense continue ad infinitum....

Whatever the case, I still think there is no reason you cannot post your answer to the better question and close the bad one as dupe. You can still do it even now with just a copy-paste. Then we get a good question with a good answer, rather than good-bad mixtures.

Sorry I don't like your use of words implying aggression on my part, and hence will not respond about this particular post anymore.

There might actually be existing good dupe targets but I don't have time to search further now. It will eventually percolate to the top of my TODO list (if any questions still exists by then, sigh)

I made clear which one was good and to be reopened, which you can be sure I'll never delete.

@user21820 In case you may not be a native English speaker, aggressive means "vigorous" above.

@user21820 Have you. Which one is "good" and why do you believe it is better?

I'm a native English speaker, and I and some others here have found your tone not conducive to productive discussion. I do not wish to argue this point at all; perhaps you sound different online as compared to offline.

@user21820 Why do you believe that lone answer is better than the three answers in the other thread?

I didn't say that at all. Please don't put words into my mouth.

I said merely that the question is worth reopening.

And that you could have and still can post your answer to that good question.

@user21820 You claim that it is "far betterr" but the only apparent justification for this claim is that it has a "complete answer". I can't make any sense of that.

@BillDubuque When I say "and" I mean "and" and not "because".

@user21820 I explicitly asked you above "why do you believe it is better?" You replied with that quote. I don't see any such justification in that quote. So again, why do you believe it is better?

@BillDubuque Your question had two parts. That quote was for the first part. I hadn't even finished answering to your question when you interrupted me...

It's better because the asker not only asked about the problem but showed clear context, stating that Fermat's little theorem was sufficient for prime p but that he/she wanted to generalize to odd p. This is the sort of good questioning we want to keep, not delete.

The other one is just a bare problem statement encased in a uniform template used by that user to increase likelihood of pity-answers.

@user21820 Sorry, I'm not going to prefer a question as a dupe target simply due to the quality of the question. When another question has far better and more diverse answers then that will always win since it is the pedagogically correct choice to make. When readers chase dupe links they are seeking good answers (not good questions) Likely they won't even bother to read the question of the dupe target, esp. since nowadays questions are obfuscated with useless fake "context"/attempts"

ABove should be "often obfuscated" but that made the message too long (I loathe this chat software)

Sorry, in my opinion, it is bad pedagogy to reward PSQs with good answers, as it is no different from rewarding lazy students with good grades. I think I've different principles from you, which are causing the disagreement, and so let's stop here and let other users judge for themselves.

@user21820 Sorry, that analogy doesn't work for me. My principles here are quite simple. The primary goal of this site is to disseminate mathematical knowledge, so anything that obstructs such is not a good thing.

fyi: this site (and room) are currently being used in a case study on these topics. You actions may make you famous (or infamous!)

In case anyone missed it there have been earlier studies using MSE, e.g. Expertise and Network Properties in StackExchange Sites, but this study is very different. It is using machine learning to study the behavior of groups of users in order to make interesting inferences about the suitability of the SE model for teaching.

@user21820 Btw, it's worth emphasis that this highlights a problem I raised earlier about the apparent lack of willingness to compromise. Even though you saw I had left a comment on that question saying that prior deletions made it difficult to find a good dupe target, you didn't ping me first for discussion. Instead, you forged right ahead to do the same once again, and reverse my new attempts at organization, and I had to discover such actions by happenstance.

@BillDubuque I can't quite tell. What compromise was proposed? The thing you backlinked to looks like a compromise aimed at preserving good answers.

@rschwieb These things happen fairly rarely as far as crude goes. There was prior discussion about compromising in such rare cases.

@BillDubuque What compromise was proposed? It would also help to know the positions of the two sides with respect to the compromise.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] No whitespace in answer (95): Assume G is a finite group and prove that the number of elements x in G s.t. $x^3=1$ is odd by Hans Martin on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted user (69): Show 6x^8+14x^5+28x+42 is irreducible in Q by Hans Martin on math.SE