4 replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
source | link

I asked Problem in understanding the proof of boundedness of a convergent sequence.Problem in understanding the proof of boundedness of a convergent sequence. yesterday & received some decent answers; however the answer posted by @Brian M. Scott explained lucidly my problem & so I accepted it today. But then I noticed, he mistook in forgetting to include $|\;\;\;|$ in two places even he mentioned them in earlier lines. So, I suggested an edit where I included the absolute sign & did some minor edits to make the edit 6 characters long. But to my surprise my suggested edit were rejected by __ putting reason:

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I, shocked, then posted a comment to @Brian M. Scott regarding the typo:

Sir, thanks for the answer. Shouldn't in $s_k≤|s_M|≤M$ & $s_k<|s|+1≤M$, there would be $|\;\;\;|$ in $s_k$; in the above lines you've written them correctly including $|\;\;\;|$ sign: "Now we know that $|s_k|≤|s_m$| if $1≤k≤N$, and $|s_k|<|s|+1$ if $k>N$"; but later, you didn't mention them. So, I think this is a typo:| – user36790

to which he responded quickly:

@user36790: Yes, I inadvertently omitted the absolute value signs around $s_k$ in the displayed formulas; they’re fixed now. Thanks for noticing.

& made an editedit the same as minemine.

So, why was my edit rejected even though it was correct & later the same edit was made by the answerer?? How, by correcting the signs, I did nothing to make it "a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible"??

I do confess that the minor edits I made to meet the 6-characters criterion, were really unnecessary. But this doesn't at all, mean you have to reject my edit. The reviewers could improve the edit by undoing the unnecessary edits without altering the main i.e. the mathematical one. After all, they have the scope to improve the edit; but they made a haste & rejected:(

I asked Problem in understanding the proof of boundedness of a convergent sequence. yesterday & received some decent answers; however the answer posted by @Brian M. Scott explained lucidly my problem & so I accepted it today. But then I noticed, he mistook in forgetting to include $|\;\;\;|$ in two places even he mentioned them in earlier lines. So, I suggested an edit where I included the absolute sign & did some minor edits to make the edit 6 characters long. But to my surprise my suggested edit were rejected by __ putting reason:

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I, shocked, then posted a comment to @Brian M. Scott regarding the typo:

Sir, thanks for the answer. Shouldn't in $s_k≤|s_M|≤M$ & $s_k<|s|+1≤M$, there would be $|\;\;\;|$ in $s_k$; in the above lines you've written them correctly including $|\;\;\;|$ sign: "Now we know that $|s_k|≤|s_m$| if $1≤k≤N$, and $|s_k|<|s|+1$ if $k>N$"; but later, you didn't mention them. So, I think this is a typo:| – user36790

to which he responded quickly:

@user36790: Yes, I inadvertently omitted the absolute value signs around $s_k$ in the displayed formulas; they’re fixed now. Thanks for noticing.

& made an edit the same as mine.

So, why was my edit rejected even though it was correct & later the same edit was made by the answerer?? How, by correcting the signs, I did nothing to make it "a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible"??

I do confess that the minor edits I made to meet the 6-characters criterion, were really unnecessary. But this doesn't at all, mean you have to reject my edit. The reviewers could improve the edit by undoing the unnecessary edits without altering the main i.e. the mathematical one. After all, they have the scope to improve the edit; but they made a haste & rejected:(

I asked Problem in understanding the proof of boundedness of a convergent sequence. yesterday & received some decent answers; however the answer posted by @Brian M. Scott explained lucidly my problem & so I accepted it today. But then I noticed, he mistook in forgetting to include $|\;\;\;|$ in two places even he mentioned them in earlier lines. So, I suggested an edit where I included the absolute sign & did some minor edits to make the edit 6 characters long. But to my surprise my suggested edit were rejected by __ putting reason:

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I, shocked, then posted a comment to @Brian M. Scott regarding the typo:

Sir, thanks for the answer. Shouldn't in $s_k≤|s_M|≤M$ & $s_k<|s|+1≤M$, there would be $|\;\;\;|$ in $s_k$; in the above lines you've written them correctly including $|\;\;\;|$ sign: "Now we know that $|s_k|≤|s_m$| if $1≤k≤N$, and $|s_k|<|s|+1$ if $k>N$"; but later, you didn't mention them. So, I think this is a typo:| – user36790

to which he responded quickly:

@user36790: Yes, I inadvertently omitted the absolute value signs around $s_k$ in the displayed formulas; they’re fixed now. Thanks for noticing.

& made an edit the same as mine.

So, why was my edit rejected even though it was correct & later the same edit was made by the answerer?? How, by correcting the signs, I did nothing to make it "a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible"??

I do confess that the minor edits I made to meet the 6-characters criterion, were really unnecessary. But this doesn't at all, mean you have to reject my edit. The reviewers could improve the edit by undoing the unnecessary edits without altering the main i.e. the mathematical one. After all, they have the scope to improve the edit; but they made a haste & rejected:(

3 added 375 characters in body; edited tags
source | link

I asked Problem in understanding the proof of boundedness of a convergent sequence. yesterday & received some decent answers; however the answer posted by @Brian M. Scott explained lucidly my problem & so I accepted it today. But then I noticed, he mistook in forgetting to include $|\;\;\;|$ in two places even he mentioned them in earlier lines. So, I suggested an edit where I included the absolute sign & did some minor edits to make the edit 6 characters long. But to my surprise my suggested edit were rejected by __ putting reason:

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I, shocked, then posted a comment to @Brian M. Scott regarding the typo:

Sir, thanks for the answer. Shouldn't in $s_k≤|s_M|≤M$ & $s_k<|s|+1≤M$, there would be $|\;\;\;|$ in $s_k$; in the above lines you've written them correctly including $|\;\;\;|$ sign: "Now we know that $|s_k|≤|s_m$| if $1≤k≤N$, and $|s_k|<|s|+1$ if $k>N$"; but later, you didn't mention them. So, I think this is a typo:| – user36790

to which he responded quickly:

@user36790: Yes, I inadvertently omitted the absolute value signs around $s_k$ in the displayed formulas; they’re fixed now. Thanks for noticing.

& made an edit the same as mine.

So, why was my edit rejected even though it was correct & later the same edit was made by the answerer?? How, by correcting the signs, I did nothing to make it "a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible"??

I do confess that the minor edits I made to meet the 6-characters criterion, were really unnecessary. But this doesn't at all, mean you have to reject my edit. The reviewers could improve the edit by undoing the unnecessary edits without altering the main i.e. the mathematical one. After all, they have the scope to improve the edit; but they made a haste & rejected:(

I asked Problem in understanding the proof of boundedness of a convergent sequence. yesterday & received some decent answers; however the answer posted by @Brian M. Scott explained lucidly my problem & so I accepted it today. But then I noticed, he mistook in forgetting to include $|\;\;\;|$ in two places even he mentioned them in earlier lines. So, I suggested an edit where I included the absolute sign & did some minor edits to make the edit 6 characters long. But to my surprise my suggested edit were rejected by __ putting reason:

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I, shocked, then posted a comment to @Brian M. Scott regarding the typo:

Sir, thanks for the answer. Shouldn't in $s_k≤|s_M|≤M$ & $s_k<|s|+1≤M$, there would be $|\;\;\;|$ in $s_k$; in the above lines you've written them correctly including $|\;\;\;|$ sign: "Now we know that $|s_k|≤|s_m$| if $1≤k≤N$, and $|s_k|<|s|+1$ if $k>N$"; but later, you didn't mention them. So, I think this is a typo:| – user36790

to which he responded quickly:

@user36790: Yes, I inadvertently omitted the absolute value signs around $s_k$ in the displayed formulas; they’re fixed now. Thanks for noticing.

& made an edit the same as mine.

So, why was my edit rejected even though it was correct & later the same edit was made by the answerer?? How, by correcting the signs, I did nothing to make it "a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible"??

I asked Problem in understanding the proof of boundedness of a convergent sequence. yesterday & received some decent answers; however the answer posted by @Brian M. Scott explained lucidly my problem & so I accepted it today. But then I noticed, he mistook in forgetting to include $|\;\;\;|$ in two places even he mentioned them in earlier lines. So, I suggested an edit where I included the absolute sign & did some minor edits to make the edit 6 characters long. But to my surprise my suggested edit were rejected by __ putting reason:

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I, shocked, then posted a comment to @Brian M. Scott regarding the typo:

Sir, thanks for the answer. Shouldn't in $s_k≤|s_M|≤M$ & $s_k<|s|+1≤M$, there would be $|\;\;\;|$ in $s_k$; in the above lines you've written them correctly including $|\;\;\;|$ sign: "Now we know that $|s_k|≤|s_m$| if $1≤k≤N$, and $|s_k|<|s|+1$ if $k>N$"; but later, you didn't mention them. So, I think this is a typo:| – user36790

to which he responded quickly:

@user36790: Yes, I inadvertently omitted the absolute value signs around $s_k$ in the displayed formulas; they’re fixed now. Thanks for noticing.

& made an edit the same as mine.

So, why was my edit rejected even though it was correct & later the same edit was made by the answerer?? How, by correcting the signs, I did nothing to make it "a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible"??

I do confess that the minor edits I made to meet the 6-characters criterion, were really unnecessary. But this doesn't at all, mean you have to reject my edit. The reviewers could improve the edit by undoing the unnecessary edits without altering the main i.e. the mathematical one. After all, they have the scope to improve the edit; but they made a haste & rejected:(

2 edited tags
| link
1
source | link