[edited the formulation in Q3]

After rereading the answer in "what is the correct terminology..." I notice that I did not really realized the contents of one comment, which even backed my own insecurity, that this answer was in fact not at the point: because in my question I ask for a power series problem and the answer is for a polynomial, which is then not simply compatible with my question.

I'd not taken this additional comment really into account then, and had "accepted" the answer. But I stumble across this now again and think, it would possibly be good to "re-open" the question. But perhaps, there would be no correct answer as well...


  1. what do you think, do I have this conceptually correct now?
  2. is it fair/not fair to "un-accept"?
  3. Is it at all worth that effort (it could also contain a bit uneasyness for the original answerer)?
  4. ... and only if all this is "yes", is this possible?
  • $\begingroup$ This is (to some extent) related: Is it rude to change which answer you accept? $\endgroup$ Oct 17, 2012 at 12:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, @Martin, that makes it easier. Also I think now the best thing is to simply post a question to the answerer in a comment (what I've done just now, well it'd have been the simplest thing at the beginning...) $\endgroup$ Oct 17, 2012 at 12:09

1 Answer 1

  1. is a Mathematical question so should be better discussed on Main instead on Meta.
  2. We have always operated under the assumption that a user is free to accept/unaccept answers as he/she chooses. (The caveat is that if a user makes a habit of not accepting answers, some users will be reluctant to answer further questions from that user.) I advocate that the only criterion for accepting answers is "does the answer answer my question?" And that is to be judged subjectively by the OP.
  3. I don't understand the question. It doesn't seem grammatical.
  4. No. See point 2. But you may want to put a bounty on the question which would allow you to explain why the existing answer is not satisfactory and also bring the question into view again (at least in terms of the software).
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, Willie. 3) means: Were "un-accepting" worth the effort in this specific case. For some formally better educated mathematician than me, or even if an undergrad, it might be immediately obvious, that there is no positive answer for the specific point (the "series"-aspect in my question), then all the action would not be worth the noise... $\endgroup$ Oct 17, 2012 at 10:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Dear Willie, Why is the answer to point 4 "No"? Isn't 4 asking if it is possible to unaccept (to which the answer is "yes")? Regards, $\endgroup$
    – Matt E
    Oct 17, 2012 at 17:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MattE: "No" as in, "it is not true that only if all the above is 'yes', it is possible". It is in some sense the Zen/Japanese mu, denying the question itself. $\endgroup$ Oct 18, 2012 at 7:53
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Willie, Thanks for the explanation. Cheers, $\endgroup$
    – Matt E
    Oct 18, 2012 at 11:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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