# Duplicate question that deserves an answer anyway

I recently voted to close a question about the limit of $\sin x/x$ because it's a duplicate of a very popular question. However, user Hayden told me in a comment that "I think the main issue here is not understanding that a limit is not simply evaluating the function at the point; less a question of why $\lim_{x\to0}\frac{\sin x}{x}=1$". I see his point, and I agree that from a pedagogical point of view the asker deserves an explanation of the proper way to think about limits. But the question is still a duplicate, because the asker wasn't thinking about that when (s)he wrote it. What should be done in this situation? Should I remove my close vote?

• If you believe there is a non-duplicate question lurking behind the posted duplicate question, you could encourage the author to post a new, non-duplicate question; or you could post the non-duplicate as a question yourself. Just be sure to make it clear, how it differs from the earlier questions. – Gerry Myerson Mar 29 '14 at 22:51
• @GerryMyerson Why not posting your comment as an answer? (Since your comment has already been upvoted 3 times, it seems that several users agree with what you wrote.) – Martin Sleziak Mar 30 '14 at 6:07
• @Martin S, done. – Gerry Myerson Mar 30 '14 at 8:17
• I have voted to reopen the said question. Maybe it could me made more clear that it is not a duplicate if the title is changed. – Martin Argerami Mar 31 '14 at 0:44
• Related (extremely tempted to say duplicate) discussion: meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/11606/…. I think the consensus was that we should keep the question open until the outstanding pedagogical purpose was fulfilled. Closure (i.e. site management) can always be done later rather than sooner. – Gyu Eun Lee Apr 6 '14 at 16:56

The presence of the sentence with "but it's $0/0$" is attributable to the requirement of showing effort. By now many users know they have to type some stuff under the problem statement, so this is what they do. This additional text (a decoration) can be ignored, both for answering and voting purposes.
• Or alternatively, the inclusion of the "but it's $0/0$" is the user explaining their understanding of limits, showing that there is a serious misunderstanding of the definition and core concept; this is critical to interpreting and actually answering the question, and shouldn't be ignored. The question is still a duplicate and I rather like Gerry Myerson's suggestion of trying to distill the question into a non-duplicate form; I think that regarding the statement by the OP as simply satisfying some requirement to show effort is not accurate. – user61527 Mar 30 '14 at 6:18