The following question

Is the definition of the meter arbitrary?

was marked as a duplicate of Is the second defined arbitrarily? - which is itself a duplicate of How is a second measured? And why is it measured that way?. None of these questions, or their associated answers, get to the heart of the closed question.

One could close the question for "lack of effort" - but it does explore an interesting aspect of physics, namely the work done to get "truly fundamental" definitions of the SI units.

Closing it with reference to a closed question that itself doesn't address the question is sloppy.

I wanted to calibrate my thought process. What do others think? I don't think "lack of effort when formulating the question" deserves "lack of effort when closing the question" - unless we make "lack of effort" a valid (and distinct) close reason.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ FWIW, I agree with you here, but note that we do have the option to fill in our own close reason and many do use the 'low effort' as the reason. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Nov 22, 2016 at 22:49
  • $\begingroup$ And OP could have answered their own question by continuing to read, rather than running off, but that's another thing here $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Nov 22, 2016 at 22:50
  • $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos - that gets to the "low effort" part... $\endgroup$
    – Floris
    Commented Nov 22, 2016 at 22:50
  • $\begingroup$ My comment was in reference to the 'and distinct' part; we somewhat technically have such a close reason succeed it is fairly common $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Nov 22, 2016 at 22:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Frankly, I don't see the value in repeating the same argument over and over just because the setting has changed slightly. Are we going to allow similar questions when ℏ, e, N_A and k_B are also fixed? As far as I'm concerned this is a duplicate, and I don't think answering this question's eternal re-spawns helps. I voted to close in the understanding that it's only my one vote, but obviously a quorum agrees the question should be closed. If a bigger quorum says reopen (without turning this into a tug of war) then that's that. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 22, 2016 at 23:16
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty - the point I was making is that unless you know the answer, even if you came across the title of the duplicate question you would not know it was a dupe. Even searching for 299792458 doesn't get you to a real duplicate (which the one marked clearly was not). But I was looking to vent - not to start a tug of war. $\endgroup$
    – Floris
    Commented Nov 22, 2016 at 23:39


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .