-12
$\begingroup$

Edit: if downvote is negative answer, then does 12 downvotes mean 12 negative answers i.e. it isn't against the rules? interesting

My question was marked as a duplicate by Did. I was trying to use a different proof involving continuity of measure and monotone convergence theorem for a question I asked before. I specified in the title my approach to the question so I don't believe this is a dupe.

Is it? If so, why? If not, am I doing anything against the rules?

Probabilistic proof for $\prod_{n} (1-p_n) > 0$ (Considering the $p_n$'s as parameters of random variables and using Borel-Cantelli and continuity)

I asked to reopen here in meta, but I got downvotes and no replies.

I edited question trying to explain how my question is not a dupe but then Did did not reply.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ This is getting quite tiresome. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Nov 13 '15 at 18:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid What did I do wrong? Why can't you just explain it to me? I don't see what's wwrong with asking about a different proof for a particular proposition $\endgroup$ – BCLC Nov 13 '15 at 18:08
  • 20
    $\begingroup$ You flood the site with minor variations of the same themes, without any clear indication what the point of it all is. Taken in isolation each action might be not so problematic, but as a pattern of behavior it is. To answer the question what you do wrong directly: you show too little consideration for the fact that answerers' time on this site is still a finite resource. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Nov 13 '15 at 18:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid Thanks, but, cmiiw, I added a clear indication later? $\endgroup$ – BCLC Nov 14 '15 at 2:53
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ "Too little, too late." You already burned through a lot of good will on this site. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Nov 14 '15 at 9:20
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "but then Did did not reply" Right, this absence of reply is a crime of an unbelievable magnitude. // To add to the context already given in the comments above, note that the OP's learning curve seems to be actually going downwards since exact copies of previous questions are reposted months later, others routinely neglect points that were made several times and in details while answering previous ones, and the like. A comment (not by me) on stats.se (aka CrossValidated, a site which the OP similarly floods) summarizes the situation pretty well: "Dude, you're taking a graduate course in ... $\endgroup$ – Did Nov 17 '15 at 9:20
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ ... theoretical probability? Learn to do your own homework. How many of these homework/test problems have you posted now?" (These guys at CV seem less tolerant than people here to those making their site dysfunctional.) Similarly I remember having asked to the OP how many questions they had posted so far bearing on the same two-lines exercise from Williams' textbook Probability with martingales. With no answer. $\endgroup$ – Did Nov 17 '15 at 9:20
11
$\begingroup$

It's all about learning math now and curating great content for the future.

You are of course welcome, encouraged even, to propose a substantially different answer to an existing Question. The advantages of this over what I see as your effort to create a siloed version of the Question (where you control the approach to be taken) seem evident.

I'm open to the possibility that there is something more substantive to the proposed variation/duplicate Question being posted. As the Asker, the burden is (initially) yours to illuminate and/or motivate the novelty of the post, yet you wrote only "I would like to try a different approach" before launching into your own attack.

If you believe your new attempt is sufficient, I'd encourage submitting an answer on the previous Question. If you know an insufficiency in such attempted proof, isolate the difficulty as best you can and frame a new Question around that aspect of a proof.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks hardmath. How can I get feedback by submitting an answer to the question? I want to know specifically if I am using continuity of measure, monotone convergence theorem and definition of supremum correctly $\endgroup$ – BCLC Nov 14 '15 at 2:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BCLC: As you have written a fair number of answers, I think you know that the feedback on answers is pretty high quality here, but the quantity and pace of interaction may accordingly not be what you want. Still, for a free resource, it is worth treating this opportunity for feedback here with care. I personally like to use StackEdit to draft lengthy posts, or edits to the same. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Nov 14 '15 at 3:23
  • $\begingroup$ Oh okay, guess I'll try that. Thanks ^-^ $\endgroup$ – BCLC Nov 14 '15 at 3:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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