3
$\begingroup$

I have a question, here, marked as a duplicate. I have substantially rewritten the question to differentiate it from the question it supposedly duplicated, and I am fairly certain that no one reading that question and this edited one would identify them with one another. I state that I have rewritten the question in the editing notes.

Is there anything else I can do to urge that the duplicate status be reconsidered, or should I just be patient? My most recent edits were admittedly only yesterday.

Would it be considered bad behavior to resubmit my edited question as a new question?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It isn't clear to me if it's a duplicate at this point, but it isn't really clear to me at all. Furthermore, I'm unsure what your question actually is. The only question marks I see are at the end of the 2nd to last paragraph, but I can't tell if that's supposed to be the real question, or if those are just speculative asides. AFAICT, you seem to have some theory of something to do with income & probability, & want someone to confirm whether it's right. But that isn't a real question, from the point of view of the SE system. $\endgroup$ – gung - Reinstate Monica Apr 12 '18 at 0:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's very hard to parse your question: it's too long and meandering. It seems to be about how to interpret pmfs/pdfs. In that case, the duplicate is non-trivially the same question and Mark's answer is non-trivially the right answer. Perhaps you should be asking (here is a good place) why the questions are in fact duplicates before posting another. Posting a cleaner, neater version of the question is not bad per se, but I'm sure you'll be disappointed if it's closed again. $\endgroup$ – AdamO Apr 12 '18 at 22:11
  • $\begingroup$ I think my question is different because 1) it concerns the interpretation of the integral from 0 to y* of y * qdf(y), not of a pdf. 2) My question is not, as whuber suggests, about what the qdf units corresponding to the pdf units are; I know those units, as I am pains to point out; hence "meandering." My question is about what they mean, specifically in the income context. I offer a suggested interpretation, and want to know if it is consistent with the units required for mathematical consistency, and if not, for a better one. $\endgroup$ – andrewH Apr 14 '18 at 3:59
  • $\begingroup$ Also because the prior question was about a unitless quantity, whereas my question concerns a quantity for which, like a mean, the units must be specified (and therefor interpreted). $\endgroup$ – andrewH Apr 14 '18 at 4:40
2
$\begingroup$

The question is jut not clear enough to me to be reopened, whether it is a duplicate or not. Your edits bumped the question into the reopen queue, where users could vote to reopen it, but it wasn't reopened. I didn't vote on it (my vote would be binding), but I would have voted to leave it closed. This is the way the SE system is designed.

At this point, if you want to continue to pursue this, I would edit your question again. Try to make it less discursive—shorter and more to the point. You will need to stay what you understand from the linked thread, and what you still need to know. Clearly and concretely, what is it that you still don't understand about your situation after reading the linked thread. You need both these elements, without them, your question is unlikely to be reopened.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I have found what I believe to be the answer to my original question which I think you will agree establishes that my original question was not a duplicate. I have reposted my original question, together with that answer, here: stats.stackexchange.com/questions/340961/… $\endgroup$ – andrewH Apr 17 '18 at 3:38

You must log in to answer this question.

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