Which one should be chosen as the duplicate target? (I am a bit hesitant to go with the oldest one - by today's standard it would be closed as PSQ. Of course, at the time the standards of the site were less strict.)
Does some of the have very nice answers - so that they would deserve to be merged into the one that remains open?
Of course, I definitely do not claim that I found all occurrences of the question.
So you suggest to go the oldest one, even though the question does not provide context.
That was the main reason why I asked. (But several people has suggested that we should be less strict about context in the question which have been posted long time ago.)
Well if that question becomes the duplicate target, it will be less likely to get deleted. (IIRC, a question which is a duplicate target cannot be deleted - at least until all other questions closed as duplicates of this one are deleted, too.)
Regardless of whether or not this post is chosen as the duplicate target, it definitely deserves a more descriptive title. (The title should include the recurrence, not just say "a recurrence with a summation function inside".)
I'll wait a bit to see whether somebody else has some feedback on this. But if nobody has some other suggestion, I'll go with the duplicate target that you proposed.
It's true that none of the questions is excellent "context-wise", but some of them at least mention where the recurrence comes from.
BTW who is CRLS? ("The recurrence above can be obtained in CLRS's Introduction to Algorithms, $3$rd edition, page $364,$ where the authors discuss rod-cutting problem using Recursive top-down implementation.")
I see: Introduction to Algorithms is a book on computer programming by Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, Ronald L. Rivest, and Clifford Stein.
Personally, I don't like "hint" answers, nor do I like "Yup, you are right" answers.
My inclination is to flag hints as "this should be a comment", but the existence of the proof-verification tag argues in favor leaving answers which are essentially "your proof is correct".
In other words (in my opinion) the problem is the existence of the proof-verification tag, and not the answer itself. I would love to see this tag removed and blacklisted, but past debate on Meta regarding this issue has not gone my way. :)
@Andrews Audits are generated automatically. If you think that the question is a poor example for auditing, there is a thread in meta which collects such examples.
Since threads about review audits seem to be turning up fairly frequently now, it seemed like a good idea to open a thread to collect examples of those audits where people failed but feel like they should not have.
This serves both the purpose of getting at least a small idea of the scale of thi...
Again, remember that audits are generated automatically.
Sometimes, hint answers are upvoted, and flagging such an answer would result in an audit failure; sometimes they are downvoted, and doing nothing would result in an audit failure.
The moral of the story is that audits don't really matter.
This question was recently closed as off-topic. It's certainly not a great question, but it's not just a PSQ and asks a legitimate question/common confusion. If you don't think it should be reopened, I'll go with it, but I wanted to highlight it.
