5
$\begingroup$

This question claims three interesting limits about primes. I think it is poorly phrased, in that there is no context, source, or effort; further, it's unclear if any of the limits are related.

That being said, I think there might be some interesting math behind it and would like to offer a bounty. I was wondering about the etiquette of such questions, basically asking: is it poor form to bounty a question that might otherwise deserve to be closed/edited?

$\endgroup$
17
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ If the OP doesn't improve the Question substantially (e.g. by giving a nice explanation of how the three limits are related), you might repost the limit that interests you the most and link to the earlier Question as having piqued your interest. You would by that time be able to supply context based on your own approaches to solving the problem. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Oct 12 at 16:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @hardmath is this a form of reputation parasitism? $\endgroup$
    – Integrand
    Oct 12 at 16:26
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't actually see what reputation parasitism means here. You do the work (of crafting a good Question, I hope, with due credit to someone unwilling or unable to do so) and reap a reward possibly from those convinced by your wording that there is a good problem to solve. And someone able to write a good Answer (possibly yourself) might be rewarded for writing that post. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Oct 12 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ I guess I mean that it creates a duplicate and any upvotes (rep) I get as a result is basically because I had the same question as this person but just phrased it better. $\endgroup$
    – Integrand
    Oct 12 at 19:24
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Just like distinguishing between an answer that gives only the answer, like "$256$", which may technically "answer" some question, it is valid for another to come along to answer the question, with explanation, I think questions can be thought of the same way. In neither the case you speak of (if you were to ask a better question), nor the answerer who wants to explain the answer, are you engaging in any sort of "parasitism." $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Oct 12 at 19:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @amWhy the first part of your answer reminded me of Cleo $\endgroup$
    – Integrand
    Oct 12 at 22:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Integrand I've just closed the question , so it's not suitable for the site as you pointed out. Let's see if Reinhard responds but until then, you are free to repost a better question and call Reinhard's attention to it. It is difficult to see if the limits are related, honestly. If you have any motivation to add, go for it. Of course, you will have to wait for two days to bounty any question that you write, but it may get an answer before the bounty, in which case all is well. It wouldn't have been right to bounty that question, or any question with at least one close vote on it. $\endgroup$
    – Teresa Lisbon
    Oct 13 at 6:33
  • $\begingroup$ It's your effort, @Integrand in seeking motivation, finding connections between the limits (enough to make the problem interesting) and showing the question in a different light. So don't worry about the reputation parasitism. $\endgroup$
    – Teresa Lisbon
    Oct 13 at 6:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Integrand Now I get it! Your reference in your comment to me :-) $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Oct 13 at 22:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Related: Guidelines for context edits and rewrites: “If the question is unsalvageable, you can rewrite it entirely by posting a new question. Here is the procedure: ...” $\endgroup$
    – Martin R
    Oct 14 at 8:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I would give it 2 more days (maybe 4 if you're feeling generous) before rewriting the question for yourself. You're not really taking reputation from anyone, as you are not diminishing Reinhard's reputation. If you link him to the new question, then this can only help him get the answer he was looking for, which presumably is the main reason he posted here in the first place! If you write up the question properly, then I'd be very happy to reward you with reputation. $\endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Oct 14 at 19:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Update : It's been deleted, with very little chance of resuscitation possible. Asking a new question is pretty much the only option. $\endgroup$
    – Teresa Lisbon
    Oct 16 at 10:22
  • $\begingroup$ If you do decide to rewrite the question, just remember to cite your sources. The author of the original question didn't, and just presented the limits with no source or proof or context indicating whether they were their own results or conjectures or just copied from some textbook or web site or whatever. Ideally, you'd of course find out who first came up with these limits and credit them, but if you can't (which seems likely, unless these are actually well known results that I'm just unaware of), then at least mention the OP as a proximate source. $\endgroup$
    – Ilmari Karonen
    Oct 16 at 17:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Integrand Do you remember the question well enough, to improve it for a new post? In a chatroom, in case you'd like to see it again, I can transcribe the question for you to work on, now that it is deleted, and you cannot yet view deleted posts. Just say the "word"! $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Oct 16 at 19:58
  • $\begingroup$ @amWhy apologies, I don't remember the question well enough and I didn't write it down... would you mind sending me a message on chat so I could work on it, improve it, and repost one of the limits? $\endgroup$
    – Integrand
    Oct 19 at 13:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .