@XanderHenderson See Mark Viola's comment on that question. It's not a duplicate.

The three most prominent requesters in Gentle, currently, are pretty clear, as are their motives.

On Sunday, alone, user pleaded for 16 of the questions they answered, that were deleted, to be undeleted.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body (44): How to derive Euler-Lagrange equation for isochronous curve of Leibniz in terms of t, $x(t)$, $\dot{x}(t)$? by Beau Horenberger on math.SE

@XanderHenderson Returning to the topic (now that I am done teaching my evening class): The new question is a very low quality question. It is (1) a problem statement with (2) the name of a theorem. There is no context given. The problem is unmotivated, and there is not even an attempted solution (which, as I've said before, can be sufficient to clear a minimal bar for context).

However, the question does have answers which are of fairly high quality. They are not significantly different (in terms of techniques) from those answers given to the older question, but they do address the specific case given in the newer question. As such, it seems appropriate to (1) close the new question (as it lacks context), but (2) give a road sign to the older question, since it is very similar.

By the way, it may be worth noting that closing the question as a duplicate makes it harder to delete that question, as it will not be automatically deleted. (Not that this is much of a risk, given the upvoted question and answers, but it seems worth point out none-the-less.)

For the record, the question has been reopened.

By yet another gold badge member.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, no whitespace in body, repeating characters in body (260): Lax-Milgram Lemma applied to parabolic problem ✏️ by andereBen on math.SE

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted user (71): Prove that a parabolic problem is well posed (Lax-Milgram lemma appilication) by andereBen on math.SE

I'd appreciate a reopen vote here if anybody sees fit: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3811805

@XanderHenderson Although I understand the argument "the question does have answers which are of fairly high quality", I feel that it should not be applied here. What is the point in closing and deleting low-quality questions to send a message that these are not acceptable and people should spend their time elsewhere, when we keep open questions because someone has spend lots of time on it?! (I don't think the argument is flawed in general, just not applicable here.)

I feel that it would be better if those "high quality answers" were added to the older 2012 question, and then they can then link to the newer question. Essentially they can change the numbers in their answers, and then explain how to connect it to this "essentially identical question". Or something.

So essentially mimicking the guidelines, but where instead of rewriting the question we use an existing one. But they have to rewrite their answers to fit, which as they have invested lots in them already then they would hopefully keep up this effort.

Lacking context, let alone an abstract duplicate

@user1729: I like your idea of merging these two questions. The issue is that it needs some work by answerers and mods. Another fact that the old and famous question also has no context. When math.se started context was no so much a focus.

@user1729: closing as a duplicate is a simpler alternative, no loss of reputation for existing answers and both questions get linked giving more stuff for readers.

If you check time line Mark Viola closed it as dupe and reopened. So maybe even the answerers also felt something similar but later changed their stance.

@user1729 I sought compromise. I don't think that either party is going to be really happy. I also don't think that merging works well in this case, as there are differences between the two questions. For example, the problem "find the equation of a line through two points" and "find the equation of a line given the slope of that line and point on the line" are, essentially, duplicates, but they can't quite be merged, since (for example) the specific numbers used may be different.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body (44): Precalculus textbook to use with Khan Academy's precalc course? by Maksym Drzyzgiewicz on math.SE

PSQ

@KReiser Now closed.

D1, D2