-5
$\begingroup$

This edit has been rejected due to the reason:

This edit deviates from the original intent of the post. Even edits that must make drastic changes should strive to preserve the goals of the post's owner.

Of course I don't have an objective viewpoint here, but I think the suggested deleted lines don't contribute anything to the understanding of the OP. Every original intent of the post can be compacted as shown in my suggested edit; it is acceptable for a non-mathematician to have unconventional or personal interpretation in here. So why is this edit bad?

enter image description here

$\endgroup$

closed as unclear what you're asking by Namaste, JonMark Perry, yoknapatawpha, Shailesh, José Carlos Santos Sep 28 '17 at 7:56

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ You did a lot more than improve formatting, remove thanks/greetings. Looks pretty drastic to me. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Sep 26 '17 at 13:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The most favorable of the comments given to you as a reason for rejecting the edit: "This edit deviates from the original intent of the post. Even edits that must make drastic changes should strive to preserve the goals of the post's owner." You're suggested edit does deviate from the asker's post. The idea in editing another's post is not to write what you think the asker ought to have asked, rather what is asked, and all the context provided by the asker. Questions get closed for lack of context! And I think you robbed the original post of a bit of the asker's context. $\endgroup$ – Namaste Sep 26 '17 at 18:23
5
$\begingroup$

Here's a list of reasons why I found your edit undesirable.

  • Changing the title from a statement to a question is a matter of taste. I don't like edits based on taste because they don't make the post easier to read or to find.

  • You changed

Now, I am confident with the mathematical definitions and all the formalism, and (more or less) I know all the main theorems.

to

I know the main theorems and definitions of Fourier analysis

which is worse than just editing based on taste: it removes some information about the question authors background. Note the use of the adjective "mathematical" before "definitions" and the word "formalism" and the phrase "more or less". These all indicate to me that the author isn't greatly familiar with proof based mathematics.

  • Additionally, these sentiments are no longer present after your edit:

Pretend to be talking with someone smart, very curious but not very knowledgeable about mathematics.

Having a truly physical interpretation of those concepts would be great!!

I would really love to have some unconventional and "personal" interpretation/point of view.

which is the main reason I felt your edit went against the authors intent.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'll answer you point by point, but again, I'm aware that my favor to them could ultimately base on taste. 1) It seems that the community also favor a real question in title, since "choosing the right question is the key to getting the answer that you need" (Should question titles be phrased as questions?) $\endgroup$ – Ooker Sep 26 '17 at 15:25
  • $\begingroup$ 2) The author explicitly says that they are "confident with mathematical definitions and all the formalism", I don't understand why they couldn't be familiar with proof based mathematics. I think the phrases "more or less" and "not very knowledgeable" are just for staying humble. And even if the edit is overdone, an addition improvement on it is suffice. 3) It is acceptable for a non-mathematician to have unconventional or personal interpretation in here, so those bits are unnecessary. And even if the edit is overdone, an addition improvement on it is suffice. $\endgroup$ – Ooker Sep 26 '17 at 15:26
  • $\begingroup$ 4) Is Hilbert transform not a subset of Hilbert space? $\endgroup$ – Ooker Sep 26 '17 at 15:26
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Ooker In my experience, people who go to great pains to explain that they more or less know the formalism do it because they don't (but think they do). The question has some red flags for the reader that were removed by your edit. This is doubly so given the original final paragraph. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Sep 26 '17 at 16:35

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