Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Meta

Comments on I would like to receive explanations to the edit to my post.

Post

I would like to receive explanations to the edit to my post.

+2
−3

I have recently posted a question.

Here is how I typed a sum there: $\sum_{i=1}^{i=N}$.

Here is how it was edited: $\sum_{i=1}^{N}$.

The comment to the edit reads: "... for correctness".

I cannot understand what is incorrect in my way of writing the sum. However, since I am not a mathematician, I assume I can be wrong.

Thus, I am wondering what exactly is incorrect in my expression.


Clarifications.

  1. The edit was suggested by @Flomic and approved by @Peter Taylor.
  2. I could not find a way to send them a private message asking for explanations.
  3. I edited the post back because I consider my original expression correct. I will edit it if I receive mathematically rigorous intelligible explanations.
  4. The reason I wrote it the way I did was because I like it that way and I think it is a better, clearer and more rigorous way than the suggested edit. With that in mind, if the editors made the edit simply because they like their way better I would like to express my objections. Here they are. Such behavior implies that you put yourselves above me because you think your opinion is more important than mine. Such behavior implies abuse of power, because you used your position to enforce your opinion on me. The later is associated with assault on personal freedom when, instead of giving the reasonably largest freedom of expression to the users, the team reduces the freedom of expression justifying it by a common good of providing to the world, what the team thinks, the best formatted content. If the assumption is correct, I would like you @Flomic and you @Peter Taylor to explain yourselves.
History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

2 comment threads

I wanted to approve the edit but change the edit summary to remove the mention of correctness, but th... (4 comments)
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital-sigma_notation . The upper bound is usually written ... (3 comments)
I wanted to approve the edit but change the edit summary to remove the mention of correctness, but th...
Peter Taylor‭ wrote 8 months ago

I wanted to approve the edit but change the edit summary to remove the mention of correctness, but this option wasn't available.

As I mentioned in another comment, there is no justification for your edit. The difference, in terms of readability, between i=N and N is tiny and I consider it negligible enough to allow myself to use my preferred way in a public post. With that regard, you enforce your preferred way on me, thus, crossing the line of moderation power abuse. The formula will stay as I wrote it. When I write something, I make sure it is clear and readable. I can assess post's readability and clarity myself. I do not need advisors who think they know better and attempt to patronize me. When I do not know how to use formatting tools, I ask - like I did in my first Codidact post. I did not ask for advice in the present case. Moderators should not micromanage users. Micromanaging is a path to authoritarianism on which you stood when tried to bring my writing style in conformity with yours without substantial reason. It is freedom of personal expression, not moderators, that should shape this community.

r~~‭ wrote 8 months ago

Wow, you seem pretty twisted up over the purpose of this site. This isn't a social media site. We are collaboratively building a public repository of knowledge here. Your submissions aren't primarily acts of personal expression; they are primarily bricks in an edifice of which we are all custodians. It is entirely acceptable for other people to attempt to improve a part of the structure that you placed, based on the prevailing standards of the mathematics community, which yes, 100% take precedence over your personal whims. That isn't micromanaging or authoritarianism; it's custodianship.

If someone is editing your posts based on arbitrary preferences that don't derive from the prevailing standards of the mathematics community, that's another thing and I'd understand the objection. But dude, you have no right to a personal notation here when a conventional alternative readily exists.

Peter Taylor‭ wrote 8 months ago

Firstly, it wasn't my edit. I don't understand why you call it my edit after having described the situation accurately in the question. Secondly, I understood the question to be about the edit summary. If that wasn't the main point, I suggest either editing the question or asking a new one. Thirdly, the point of mathematical notation is to communicate with other people. The basis of written communication is agreement on how symbols should be used and understood. It's sometimes convenient to deviate from standard usage, but in those cases the deviation should be documented.