0
$\begingroup$

I happened to suggest an edit where IMO

I made the title more descriptive,

edited and added text in the body

and added one more tag.

On a 5 years old post.

This https://math.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/1421570

and was rejected.

If you could tell me what is wrong with it?

If it's because it's too old, well that's totally new news to me.

Or "an edit which doesn't make a lot of difference." well, that's actually surprising too, I've edited other old post where I only add a single tag and it's approved.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/54953671#54953671 $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Mod Jul 15 '20 at 16:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also, users need to not jump to the conclusion they were wronged when a suggested edit is rejected. They need also to consider that it is possible they were in fact mistaken in suggesting the edit, and that the action rejecting the edit was warranted. I think that's what happened in this case. $\endgroup$ – amWhy Jul 16 '20 at 20:15
8
$\begingroup$

I am not guessing why the two users rejected your edit. I just point out one problem that I see: you changed

$$\forall \epsilon>0 \ \exists n_0 \ \forall n\geq n_0 |a_n-L|>\epsilon,$$

to the "correct" one:

"$\forall L, \exists \epsilon > 0 : \forall N\in\mathbb N, \exists n\ge N : |(x_n)-L| \geq \epsilon,$

which is the negation of the definition of a convergent sequence

$\exists L,\forall \epsilon>0: \ \exists N\in\mathbb N, \ \forall n\ge N: |(x_n)-L|<\epsilon.$"

Although this is mathematically correct, it could happen that the questioner is stuck precisely because they use the incorrect definition. The better action would be to point out in a comment that the definition is wrong.

That being said, that post is really bad. The OP did not give any attempt, and more importantly, the answerers are not even trying to answer using the $\epsilon-N$ definition. I suggest to close and delete it.

Update: Checking the edit history, the question-er actually got the negation almost correct (see edit 1), but it was wrongly edited in 2019 to the current wrong one (edit 3) (Actually, the editor tried to undo their mistake here, but they seem to do it wrong and the suggested edit was rejected). If you made that clear in the edit comment that you are undoing the wrong edit in 2019 and I was the reviewer, I would approve the edit.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Regarding closure and deletion: I don't disagree, but folk only get a finite number of close and/or delete votes per day, and a 6 year old PSQ is not going to be a high priority for most. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Mod Jul 15 '20 at 17:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Xander I dont disagree too (It seems now the system will eventually delete the post). $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Jul 16 '20 at 2:32
  • $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar The question has two answers (both with positive score). I don't think roomba applies to such cases. (Of course, I might have missed something.) Although it seems that the answers got from zero to +1 only recently. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jul 18 '20 at 5:47
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak Yes someone just upvoted those two answers recently, seem they prefer to keep the post. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Jul 18 '20 at 6:09

You must log in to answer this question.