7
$\begingroup$

I am talking about this one. Maybe I am being stupid, but I don't see anything wrong with it. Could those who closed it please explain what I am missing? Or was it just a case of people not having heard the word "nuclear space" and being trigger happy in assuming that if they haven't heard of it, then it doesn't exist?

Edit: I just saw that the same user is posting questions about radius of convergence of complex power series and, at the same time, about automorphic representations. Now, I am puzzled.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I voted to close because it came in conjunction with a question about developability of meromorphic functions into power series up to the nearest pole, one about bornologies that didn't make sense as asked, and particularly since the question implied that nuclear spaces are a generalization of Banach spaces. It was a bit too much for me to take. $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jun 24 '11 at 7:40
  • $\begingroup$ As it stands now it still isn't very good (it doesn't say a word about the domain of the unbounded operator), but I cast a vote to reopen. $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jun 24 '11 at 7:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Well, I guess I share your puzzlement. The questions are more or less reasonable now, but I see a lot of laziness here, to which I tend to react allergically. $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jun 24 '11 at 7:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Theo I agree that the question is not very good. The user doesn't seem to know exactly what he wants to know, so it reads as a fishing expedition. But to me, it didn't quite look bad enough to just close it. That's why I asked. $\endgroup$ – Alex B. Jun 24 '11 at 7:47
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Ideally, if a "bad" question is closed, the OP will edit to improve or clarify the question, after which it will be reopened. In the case of the bornology question, it was closed, then the OP edited to improve and clarify, and I have just voted to reopen. $\endgroup$ – Jonas Meyer Jun 24 '11 at 7:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jonas: I also cast votes to reopen the two closed questions. I stand by what I said before, and I already provided the OP with a precise reference for two of the questions he asked. I leave it to others to answer the questions that are hopefully re-opened soon. $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jun 24 '11 at 8:07
  • $\begingroup$ (Re: edit) I voted to reopen already, but now I'm somewhat... puzzled too $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Jun 24 '11 at 9:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Alex: I've posted a CW answer summarising the events as described in the comments. If you consider the problem resolved (in view of the re-opening), please "accept" the answer (just to make the software platform happy). $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Jun 24 '11 at 15:26
6
$\begingroup$

A summary of events: the questions were closed. The OP edited them and made them better. Now the questions are re-opened.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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