# Answer deleted. Should I just ask a new question showing more detail?

My answer was deleted to this question: Minimax problem for optimization $\inf \sup \frac{x f(x)}{\int_0^1 f(t) dt}$

I see why it was deleted. It was because I could not form the question in the proper manner in enough time. Also it was because I did not say that I was coming from a physics standpoint. I probably should have done that.

My answer is correct however from a mathematical-physics standpoint.

Maybe I should just post a new question about it and show why it's true?

Thanks for the feedback!

• A minor correction: your answer was not deleted - instead, it is greyed out for being heavily downvoted. – KReiser May 2 '20 at 3:10
• As KReiser pointed out, your answer has not been deleted. But, why would you not edit the existing answer? The edit will bump it to the frontpage, so voters can reconsider. – Jyrki Lahtonen May 2 '20 at 6:41
• (cont'd) Each and every time a post gets negative attention (in main) the go to - reaction should be to EDIT IT INTO SHAPE. Why so many think it might be prudent to delete it and try again is beyond me. May be they don't know that the bad effects of the deleted post won't go away by simply deleting the post (that may still be undeleted, possibly by somebody else)? – Jyrki Lahtonen May 2 '20 at 6:44
• I see where you are coming from @JyrkiLahtonen. That's a really good point. I will try my best to edit it into shape. – geocalc33 May 2 '20 at 13:35
• If someone asks a question about mathematics, then there is no such thing as "correct from a mathematical-physics standpoint". There might be considerations useful for doing physics, but those belong somewhere else, or with heavy disclaimers of which parts are actually precise mathematics. – Tobias Kildetoft May 2 '20 at 14:56

The Question to which you were replying does not refer to "physics" or invite an interpretation in terms of "an energy functional". Making this interpretation might be useful as content for Math.SE, but your presentation merely mentions such an interpretation and immediately transitions to "Putting it all together..."

If you have in mind some definite way to interpret the functional to be minimized as "energy", it might be a welcome supplement to the existing upvoted Accepted Answer to the Question. But the present wording does not really expose your thinking to Readers (such as myself) with a casual familiarity with mathematical physics, and minimum energy formulations in particular.

Note that you state your conclusion as finding a limit $$r$$ which is "not equal to $$0$$", and thus in apparent disagreement with the Accepted Answer. The Comments from that Answer's author on your post point to your having misunderstood what the Question asks for (an infimum), and you should make an effort to resolve the discrepancy before claiming (as above) "My answer is correct however from a mathematical-physics standpoint."

• In the first sentence $$f$$ is a map on the reals.
• Then $$h$$ appears out of the blue. What does it mean to use the infsup???
• And finally another magical leap with anew undefined symbol $$\phi$$.