Not sure why this was closed:

How do you show that the Lorentz metric is preserved for $\zeta^{3,1}?$

I think it was closed because I bit off more than I could chew so to speak and should have just asked a more simple question.

That being said, what can I do to possibly reopen it? I've edited it to a form which I am pleased. It's short concise, and mainstream.

Looking for feedback on what I can do to possibly reopen it. How can I reopen this question?

Thanks for the feedback!

| |
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ By the way, thank you for asking politely how to improve your question to get it reopened. This is exactly what we want people to do when their questions are put on hold and it's not clear from the notice box and/or comments what they should do about it. (Some other people are much more confrontational about it.) $\endgroup$ – David Z May 3 at 11:41

The reopen review for v5 (not substantially different from the current version) concluded 3-0 with Leave Closed. This indicates your current version is still considered insufficiently clear by the community.

This is probably because e.g. it is left completely unexplained what $\zeta^{i,j}$ is supposed to be. There are other notational/terminological issues, such as the unusual phrasings of the functions $f_T$ or $\phi_S$ - e.g. I would expect you to just write about families of functions $f_t(x) = \frac{t^2}{x}$ instead of the subscript variable generating sets of curves. The significance of these unusual phrases is left unclear.

For questions to be intellegible, you should not only ask about mainstream topics (which this question may or may not be about as it is currently hard to tell), but you should also use mainstream terminology. When in doubt, prefer to overexplain notations and terminology used rather than not explain it.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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