@TeresaLisbon It has to be a duplicate, but these kinds of questions are typically so muddled that finding a good dupe target is hard. :\

@XanderHenderson That's the issue I face. I haven't closed yet, and I saw the post above as a potential duplicate. Do you think we should mark it as a duplicate of the above? I'm ready to, the only reason why I'm hesitating is because the condition of an "infinite" expansion is very implicit in the new post, to the point that I'm wondering if OP will acknowledge it at all.

No, I think that it should probably be closed for lack of clarity.

Again, the question is a muddle. :\

I don't think that is a great dupe target, but I can't find one I like better.

Right, let's do that.

Arg... what is going on with the edits to this question...?!

Sanity check: I just closed this oldie as a duplicate. The dupe target is correct, yes?

(There is a slight difference in the continued fractions, but they are essentially the same thing.)

@XanderHenderson I initially rolled back the first editor (prior to me); I thought they took too much liberty, but I did not want to cause a disturbance, so I rolled back to the edited question. Then I see the OP edited. Of course, this means endless routes through the reopen queue. Sorry for the disturbance. But the OP is playing games, and it frustrates me.

@amWhy While I will admit that I was confused by your edit, the replacing of a comma with a colon is egregious...

@XanderHenderson Was that the previous edit? I didn't to anything except roll back to the last edit of the OP.

@amWhy No, it was the edit made by the author after you rolled it back.

math.stackexchange.com/revisions/4264453/17

The made another edit within the window which makes it all one edit.

Gawd... that question is a mess.

@XanderHenderson Yes. Well Eudoxus won by game playing, abusing meta, whining, etc.

The question is closed again. It is a clear duplicate.

@XanderHenderson It really is a duplicate of the question you posted above. Gracias.

Of course, the example of $(0,1) \cup (1,2)$ and the two point set is a great example of why homology is completely useless. :D

@XanderHenderson hah!

cv-pls continued-fractions duplicate (see linked thingy---I closed it once...) Does this continued fraction have a name?‭ - Reneo‭ 2021-10-01 00:13:17Z

@XanderHenderson $\checkmark$

Collatz again - C/D

@Peter It's the same one as before! How many times do we need to close a question about the collatz attractor?

D - a conjecture not significantly easier than Goldbach

this should be a duplicate (in fact I think the "$100$" mentioned in the comment is no exaggeration). Can someone find a good target ?

D , the given number appears to be random and nothing is said about the allowed numbers. This allows the pointed out boring solution.

@Peter What about this one: math.stackexchange.com/q/939917/42969 as a dup target?

@Peter done

@MartinR If noone finds something even closer, we can take it.

@Peter yesterday i voted to delete this question.At that time,this question had been deleted . I don't know why this question has been re-opened ?

@Peter Ready for deletion.

Can someone explain why this question was closed?

@Prithubiswas It IS WRITTEN that: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc.. This is the main reason, I think, why your question is closed ?

Would someone with more knowledge in algebra than I have (i.e. more knowledge than almost none :) have a look at math.stackexchange.com/a/4264957/42969? The author of the answer argues that a rational function must take a rational value at x=1/2. I cannot judge if that “deal with a field extension” argument makes sense.

D1, D2, D3, D4

D5, D6, D7, D8

@ArcticChar It is written that ''You've reached the maximum of 5 Deletion votes per day; come back in 11 hours''

@jasmine I'm unsure what you expect. I'm quite familiar with mathematical logic but even I am unaware of a good alternative to LPL in answer to that question (as you can see from my comments there), because most logic texts called "introductory" are actually not teaching students how to do mathematics using FOL but rather are texts that study FOL systems as mathematical objects. I would be interested to see if anyone does know of any good free book that I was unable to find.

@MartinR I've asked a question to the OP and another one to Bernard.

@MartinR I downvoted the answer because I do not agree that the coefficients can be assumed to be rational. Additionally, nothing has been worked out, the answer is too short.

@MartinR gone

@Prithubiswas $1)$ It is not closed $2)$ Whether a book is suitable or not is a quite subjective matter, therefore such questions are off-topic because of "seeking for personal advice"

@Peter Thanks for repoening it. I am planning to make that post more precise so that it is clear to the reader which kind of book I am looking for. Although I am not sure what you meant by "seeking for personal advice".

@Prithubiswas Maybe "opinion based" is more spot-on than seeking personal advice. "Suitability" is a subjective term when applied to books. Although, sometimes people ask something that amounts to "is this suitable for me?" which is quite a bit in the personal-advice side, as well as opinion based.

@RyanG 👉😎👉

@user21820 Because you are a logician , I will ask you if there are ways to improve my post or I should delete it and ask a new one. I don't want the readers to suffer from unclarity. Also , maybe "fitch style" is a bit too much restrictive in this context ?

@Prithubiswas I cast a reopen-vote because (as I said above) I'm unsure how it can be improved that much. If you want I can edit it into a more precise version, but I don't think you should drop the Fitch-style restriction because what other style is practical? (It's just like the fact that all production programming languages use indentation.)

@user21820 Well , I see some ways to improve it. Like for example , I completely forgot to mention "practicality" and "conceptual correctness" in my post , which is an unpleasant error. I should also provide explanation to each of the criteria like syntax,style,practicality etc so that the viewers know what I am talking about.

I didn't mention how "concise" the textbook has to be. And "practicality" is quite a subjective notion by itself. How the reader supposed to know what is practical to me and what is not ?

@Prithubiswas Indeed. So for example we could use an example theorem that we want to be able to prove and how it should look like. The problem with many systems out there is that they are only ever used for toy examples like "drinker paradox". I've never seen a complete human-readable Fitch-style proof of any complicated theorem. (And you of course now know that there are quite a lot of technical detail that has to go into any such system.)

@user21820 Because I don't have nearly as much logical expertise to ask this kind of technical book recommendation question , and you have the logical expertise and teaching experience to know what would be good for someone of a high-school/college level or higher assuming the person doesn't know much about logic or higher mathematics , may I ask you.

Will you be the one to make this kind of book recommendation post?

okay @user21820 you are right about that

Okay, all, can we move on beyond one users complaint about a closed question? And @jasmine, you seem to have become one of the sorts of users you agreed are "overbearing on this site", Given your comments, for example to Eudoxes on meta. It is frustrating to see you taking actions like those taken here, and then every other day, defending users who think users, including you, impose their will on all others.

@user21820 It's a poor question, not entirely clear; and I think your reopening reveals bias in favor of all posts in topics you favor and are especially interested in, and that you'd like to answer. In any case, the conversation is now off topic here. Can we please move on, user21820 and @Prithru ? Please continue your conversation elsewhere.

Please consider closure

@amWhy I'll continue elsewhere, but I don't think I'm biased. I also didn't want to answer because I don't have an answer (as I said quite explicitly).

@user21820 rhetorical question: How often have you voted to reopen a question? Compared to the number you've voted to close, I'd say your reopen to close ratio is about (0.001)/(.999). And that's being generous; and you've not really even defended you reopening, unless your reason for reopening is "since I can't answer it, it must be a super duper great question." Which reveals more about you than it does the question.

@amWhy Many times I have voted to reopen, but I don't mention it here unless it fails and I strongly feel it was wrongly closed. Moreover, in this case I even refrained from voting until I saw that 4 others voted to reopen.

@amWhy No I don't think it's a great question. I agree it's not a great question.

I just think that it's not really the asker's fault for not being able to ask a better question than what it is.

Anyway I will not contest a subsequent closure.

@user21820 I'm guessing you believe your reopen vote is a consolation prize to the OP, because they asked in an area you love?

@amWhy No it's not a prize. Please refrain from using those kind of words because I had absolutely no intention to favour that kind of topic.

@user21820 I'll expect such mercy in your future decisions to not vote to close, which should now be common; because, if a user could not have asked a better question, then it is what it is, but shouldn't be closed. Quite a change in attitude, I dare say!

I really do not like inconsistencies, @user21820

@amWhy I don't understand what you mean. I have always been consistently against questions that show no effort. It is for questions that I cannot figure out how to show effort that I am more lenient. If you think I am inconsistent, show me how to show more effort in that kind of question.

I don't like inconsistencies as much as you. We simply have a different view of this question, not necessarily that either of us is inconsistent.

@amWhy I asked user21820 this question precisely because he\she is unbiased and has the most expertise on this subject[logic]. And also , now that I know what the question lacks and how it can be improved , feel free to close it , because I will ask a much better question in the future once I have sufficient knowledge of it.

@Prithubiswas It is your personal perspective that they are "unbiased" and "have the most expertise on this subject[logic]." Your perspective does not necessarily match with reality. Certainly it is not the reality wrt one of those biased conclusions of yours.

Let me repeat my view: I agree it is not a good question, primarily because as written it is quite opinion-based. I will not reopen-vote again since people here think it shouldn't be reopened. But I think Prithu could not have asked a better question at that time. Maybe next time Prithu can ask a better question. Also, like I said, I deliberately withheld voting before I saw others already thought it worth reopening.

@amWhy Sure , it might be subjective. It is just my opinion after 3 months of interaction with user21820 :P

@user21820 You have introduced the excuse for reopening: "user X could not have asked a better question, at this time." So someone skipping Calc I for 2/3 of the year, asking about how to find the derivative of f(x) = 2x, could not have asked a better question, given their entire lack of exposure to content offered in the class they haven't attended. Your reasoning does not hold water. "Yes officer, I robbed a bank, but I had no clue that doing so was against the law, so couldn't have known...

@Prithubiswas And who else, comparatively? And hence, I understand user21820's bias in reopening your question.

@amWhy That's a good question. But isn't your example clearly an instance of "lacking effort"? In this case, Prithu in the original question not only mentioned LPL, but also that he wanted "natural deduction fitch style". Please tell me how Prithu can show more effort in that regard. (As I said, I won't contest closure, but I want to know your suggestion on how Prithu can do better.)

@user21820 If one doesn't know they are lacking in knowledge, then why would one know that they need to put effort into learning something they aren't even aware that they don't know? Slippery slope you went down, my friend.

@amWhy I understand. So please tell me and Prithu what we need to put effort into (that we are not aware) in order to ask a better version of this question.

@user21820 We close duplicates, not do to lack of effort.

@amWhy Yes I know that; I wasn't referring to duplicates. Is Prithu's question a duplicate?

Closure is does not require "lack of effort" which you are fixated on. Nor does "lack of context necessarily mean lack of effort.

@amWhy I agree. But please tell me what exactly is the better version of Prithu's question that should have been asked.

This is not a game, @user21820. I made my points.

@amWhy I'm not playing a game. I truly want to know your view on how to improve that question.

@user21820 I think it is not ready for "prime time math.se open posts". Also, I could improve it, but I will not put words in anothers' mouth. And DO NOT ask in CURED, in the future, for anyone to delete a silly answer to that post, because you reopened it. See you!

@amWhy I see. I suppose I have been misinterpreting you then. I completely agree it is not a good candidate for "prime time Math SE open posts". I was just being lenient just as I am with calculus questions that show effort even if it doesn't use MathJax. I understand if you disagree with my leniency. I was just explaining why I cast the last reopen-vote.

Duplicate

@user21820 I get it. I'm more lenient in areas you are not. Off topic questions can include significant effort, but may not be appropriate for this site. Given the effort, should they remain open too? Maybe they should... Perhaps we should also keep open all dupes in which a user expended a lot of effort! I'm now on a mission to never close and if needed, reopen, dupes with effort, off topic posts, provided the asker provided significant effort. Thanks for enlightening me, @user21820

Likely duplicate I found some results but it's all either too general (vector spaces+inner products) or not general at all (real/complex numbers). Should I locate a better duplicate or go for the general version?

@amWhy Sorry, I didn't intend to imply you should change your view. I was only saying what went through my mind. That's why I am happy with letting you and others decide the final state of that post.

@TeresaLisbon Ask @user21820, because it does seem the asker applied effort, and therefore should remain open, given his logic.

@TeresaLisbon It's closed now.

@JoséCarlosSantos Thanks.

@amWhy I think I shouldn't have asked for improvement on this question in "CURED". Maybe "Logic" or "Basic Mathematics" would have been more suitable for this discussion. maybe even move the messages? For that I apologize.

@JoséCarlosSantos @user21820 might object, it did show effort. Is a vote to reopen forthcomeing, @user21820 ?

@MartinR Here, the OP confirmed the “rational functions” were the usual ones and the answer that you mentioned was deleted.

@Prithubiswas I trust you did your best. No reason to rethink your actions. I do not fault you in any way.

@amWhy It did show effort. Nevertheless, it is a duplicate.

@amWhy No, let me clarify.. As I said above, I don't apply "effort shown" to duplicates in the same manner. If a duplicate shows effort, I don't vote to delete unless there is an answer that shouldn't be there in my opinion. But if a duplicate doesn't show effort, then I will also delete-vote.

@JoséCarlosSantos Precisely, but @user21820 thinks that effort ought to entitle every close post to reopened. That is not my stance. Thanks for helping to make my point.

I didn't say that. I said I don't apply "effort shown" to duplicates in the same manner.

@user21820 That's silly, a user who cannot know that their question is a duplicate, given your logic above, ought not to suffer closure.

@amWhy No, in my view a duplicate should remain closed whether or not the user knew.

If I said something earlier that seems to be contrary to this, please quote me and I will see whether I was unclear in my phrasing.

I will try to improve my phrasing to avoid miscommunication.

PSQ

@user21820 Yes you did say something, regarding pardoning users when it is clear they could not have known to do differently. You can't add rules to support X, then deny those rules to support Y.

@amWhy Regarding that, I did not mean that in general. I meant that specific to Prithu's post. That's why I asked you whether it was a duplicate. If it was, I completely agree with closure no matter what. So do you have a duplicate target in mind?

Low quality

@user21820 One cannot create separate rules for each and every specific user.

@amWhy I didn't separate. My rule is: If lacking effort, then close and delete. Otherwise ( if duplicate, then close but don't delete, otherwise consider other reasons for being off-topic ).

@TeresaLisbon; one more close vote needed: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/59275221#59275221

@amWhy Closed.

@user21820 Gracias!!

You're welcome!

@amWhy Closed, I had voted to close it before and should have informed you.

@TeresaLisbon No problem! Thanks

Another PSQ

@amWhy Can I put my own post for closure?

@Prithubiswas I think you can even self-vote for closure.

By the way if you can find a duplicate of my previous post , let me know. It can help me with my book search.

Another one Literally just picking them off from the newest queue.

Closure

Closure

Duplicate

Side note : just read this comment, bad day at MSE rock , was 12-6-13.

okay @amWhy i am sorry for that

@jasmine No worries, I'm just confused sometimes. Glad to have you here!

I think this post is rather opion-based, particularly after listing OP's understanding of definitions of "complexity", they write: "You can give opinions for each description 1.–8.: "https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4251674/my-understanding-of-the-term-complexity

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12.

C1, C2, C3.