-6
$\begingroup$

This question was put on hold.
That was a most unfortunate decision: the accepted answer makes the unnecessary assumption that the base field is algebraically closed and invokes the absurdly irrelevant Nullstellensatz to solve in a complicated way an easy and purely formal result.
When I wanted to give that easy solution I found out that I couldn't because of the closure of the question (or whatever euphemism is now current).
The negative side of having an unsatisfactory answer accepted and unimprovable far surpasses any worry of "missing context" invoked by the closers.
For what it is worth I am completely uninterested in "context", how much effort the OP put into his question and similar considerations : I am a mathematician and not a moralist (as far as this site is concerned).

Edit
I have now answered Voyska's friend's question in a comment, and since I have expressed my point of view on the policies of this site I don't think there is much for me to add to this thread.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It was put on hold because MSE users think that the absence of explanation of what someone is doing implies that (s)he just want easy answers and does not bother to think about it for (her)himself. $\endgroup$ – Billy Rubina Jun 28 '15 at 10:18
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Voyska: yes, I know that at least five people think that. But I wonder why anybody should care whether some completely unknown person thinks for himself or not. I happen to be interested in mathematics and judge a question on its merits, not on the good or bad reasons for which it was posted. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Jun 28 '15 at 10:25
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. If the question reopens, I hope you add a contribution. It'll be very useful for my friend. $\endgroup$ – Billy Rubina Jun 28 '15 at 10:28
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ Why is this thread necessary? You know exactly why it was put on hold, so you either want to discuss close reasons (for which there are a multitude of threads), or to get it re-opened for which there is a dedicated thread. $\endgroup$ – Scott H. Jun 28 '15 at 10:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Scott H. I do indeed want the thread reopened and I voted to reopen: I'm giving technical arguments here for reopening. I also use this egregious example to warn users about the negative consequences of closing questions. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Jun 28 '15 at 11:23
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @GeorgesElencwajg What you wonder about has been discussed at exhausting length on meta before. I don't see why you would be entitled to this same discussion again just because you happen to disagree with the outcome. Notwithstanding that the measures taken are undesirable from a theoretical perspective, they are our best bet against becoming a shameless homework service. If you have better ideas or otherwise want to challenge this practice, please create a separate thread. $\endgroup$ – Lord_Farin Jun 28 '15 at 11:30
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ "The negative side of having an unsatisfactory answer accepted and unimprovable far surpasses any worry of "missing context" invoked by the closers." Normally such a question should get deleted soon. There is thus no need to be overly worried. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 28 '15 at 14:26
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @quid Au contraire, there is a "need to be overly worried" when the site has devolved to the point where interesting questions can no longer receive proper answers. This is just as I predicted long ago when these misguided policies were first proposed. Meanwhile, the horrendous side-effects (brain-drain etc) continue... $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Jun 29 '15 at 14:20
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque the most direct consequence here seems to be that the question got improved, confirming that the policy works. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 29 '15 at 14:29
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @quid Yes, it is "working" to alienate yet more experts in their fields. Soon MSE will have no more experts due to such foolish policies. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Jun 29 '15 at 14:30
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Do you intend to answer the question eventually? First, you make a big deal how it is a problem you cannot post an answer, now you could and you still don't. What was the point of it all? $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 30 '15 at 7:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid. As I explained in my Edit the subject is closed for me. Anyway, I don't wish to have a discussion with you. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Jun 30 '15 at 8:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It appears the subject is not as important to you after all. This is a bit unfortunate, but it being a recurring theme, no real surprise. But as the saying goes hope dies last. Anyway, sorry, for trying to understand your point. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 30 '15 at 9:37
3
$\begingroup$

The body of the specific Question says only this:

Does such a $X$ exist? If yes, give an example, please.

The OP, Voyska, has asked hundreds of questions on the site, so I would expect the body of the Question to bear the burden of posing a problem with suitable detail.

I reviewed the Question for closure earlier, and noted the special circumstances described in the Comments on the Accepted Answer. Essentially the problem had been texted to Voyska by a friend, and Voyska merely transcribed it. In this case I chose to skip for the time being, but to reopen the Question I would like to see an intelligible problem posed in the body, not relying wholly on the title for its substance.

Given the terseness of the presentation, I thought the first answer did an admirable job of making sense of the Question, even if it entailed making the assumption of varieties over an algebraically closed field. I can sympathize with Georges Elencwajg's frustration at not being able to present a consistent solution that removes that assumption, but the closure of the Question was due not to community politics but to its poor phrasing.

Update:

The specific Question has been edited to include the basic problem statement, and it has been reopened.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "but the closure of the Question was due not to community politics but to its poor phrasing." I don't know why you think it was poorly phrased. The question is crystal clear. $\endgroup$ – user249674 Jun 29 '15 at 22:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ivanhoescott do you base your judgment on the current version or the one hardmath referred to? $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 29 '15 at 23:30
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid OK, the current version. But I think anybody who has a basic knowledge of algebraic geometry can understand the old version. $\endgroup$ – user249674 Jun 30 '15 at 0:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ivanhoescott "poorly phrased" is not the same as "incomprehensible." $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 30 '15 at 7:32

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .