Skip to main content
Philosophy

Return to Question

added 918 characters in body
Source Link
Not_Here
Not_Here
  • 2.9k
  • 8
  • 10

Actually on that point, Frank's answer to the question even admits as much:

This answer only addresses the part of the question about Cantor's diagonal method, not Haim Gaifman's discussion of Richard's solution. Hopefully it provides a usable partial answer.

This is an admission that the question does not contain one concise question as per meta (one question per post). The question has been edited so that the additional question about Gaifman's discussion is no longer there, but I think it still shows that Frank's opinion on what questions do and do not conform to site rules is different than mine, at least in this specific case, so I think the discussion is still warranted (especially since the question, even after edits, still has multiple questions).

In summation, I do not believe that this question should have been reopened, I think it still has major content and formatting problems, but since there seems to be a disagreement between active contributing members of the community on this, I would like to hear from everyone and see if we can get to an agreement on it. I would especially appreciate it if Geoffrey and Frank could explain their views on why they wanted to reopen it in its current state, specifically if they would address the content and formatting issues I have outlined.

In summation, I do not believe that this question should have been reopened, I think it still has major content and formatting problems, but since there seems to be a disagreement between active contributing members of the community on this, I would like to hear from everyone and see if we can get to an agreement on it. I would especially appreciate it if Geoffrey and Frank could explain their views on why they wanted to reopen it in its current state, specifically if they would address the content and formatting issues I have outlined.

Actually on that point, Frank's answer to the question even admits as much:

This answer only addresses the part of the question about Cantor's diagonal method, not Haim Gaifman's discussion of Richard's solution. Hopefully it provides a usable partial answer.

This is an admission that the question does not contain one concise question as per meta (one question per post). The question has been edited so that the additional question about Gaifman's discussion is no longer there, but I think it still shows that Frank's opinion on what questions do and do not conform to site rules is different than mine, at least in this specific case, so I think the discussion is still warranted (especially since the question, even after edits, still has multiple questions).

In summation, I do not believe that this question should have been reopened, I think it still has major content and formatting problems, but since there seems to be a disagreement between active contributing members of the community on this, I would like to hear from everyone and see if we can get to an agreement on it. I would especially appreciate it if Geoffrey and Frank could explain their views on why they wanted to reopen it in its current state, specifically if they would address the content and formatting issues I have outlined.

Source Link
Not_Here
Not_Here
  • 2.9k
  • 8
  • 10

Should this question have been reopened?

The question is Logic related to Cantor's Argument and I am wondering if in it's current state it should be open because I feel like it still has many of the problems it was closed for.

I do not remember all of the people who voted to close it, I know that it was Conifold, Maruo, EliranH, and myself and my apologies to the other person whom I cannot remember. However, I also think it's telling that the only comment on the question that has been upvoted is one of my comments explaining that the question should be rewritten. However, it was voted to be reopened by Frank Hubeny and then Geoffrey Thomas used his moderating power to reopen it. The reason why I am bringing up the specific people is because, although it was five people voting against it and only two people voting to reopen it, all of the people involved are people who take an active part in the community and improving question, so I believe that instead of "hey it's not fair that a moderator outvoted a group of users", we should instead have a discussion about the question.

My opinion as of right now is that the question still fails to live up to both the official guidelines as well as the implicit guidelines the community itself enforces on questions. Right now the question has two down votes and two up votes, which isn't as bad as a lot of questions here get but I think that is still pretty contentious.

I saw this question after there had already been about 12 or so comments made and it was a perfect example of a question that becomes longer and less organized as the original poster responds to comments by adding more text instead of rewriting things. I skimmed the question looking for all instances of '?' and could not find a single thesis-statement-like question that clearly related to the title of the question itself. However, even after this was pointed out and the user deleted some 3000 characters from the question, it still fails to be concise, have a clearly stated question, and or be structured in a way that pushes all irrelevant background information out of the main thrust of the question.

As of right now, it has four paragraphs in the beginning that do not mention Cantor or his diagonal argument. It's last paragraph is a block paragraph that reads like a run on sentence even though it has some punctuation and still it is not entirely clear just from looking at that paragraph what the penultimate question is. This is especially bad, since it is in the guidelines that questions should only contain one question. I think that is a rule that is broken sometimes, but as a community we usually agree that if there are some distinct minor questions that ultimately contribute to understanding the larger question, that's fine. But I do not believe that is the case here.

In summation, I do not believe that this question should have been reopened, I think it still has major content and formatting problems, but since there seems to be a disagreement between active contributing members of the community on this, I would like to hear from everyone and see if we can get to an agreement on it. I would especially appreciate it if Geoffrey and Frank could explain their views on why they wanted to reopen it in its current state, specifically if they would address the content and formatting issues I have outlined.