I've come across quite a few questions where I believe one or more acceptable answers have been given, but in the comments rather than as an answer.  In cases like these, would it be acceptable for me to post an answer which does little more than reiterate what has been said in the comments, but nonetheless does answer the question?  It kinda annoys me that there are questions which remain "unanswered" despite the fact an answer has been given (and sometimes acknowledged by the questioner) in the comments, but I wouldn't want to post an answer if it might cause conflict or is somehow against the rules or etiquette.
I'm trying to go through and provide answers to every unanswered question (search &quot;closed:0 answers:0&quot;), somewhat following the spirit that was blogged about at  .  However, I'm finding this much more difficult than it needs to be, as many of the questions have already been answered without the use of an &quot;answer&quot; - but instead, in the form of a comment by either the OP or another poster. I wouldn't mind reading through and skipping these, as long as there was some appropriate action I could take to at least assist with preventing these questions from being seen again from the same query - either by myself or another SO member.  Is there such an appropriate action?  Should we vote to close?  If so, using what reason? Even if I vote to close, what are the chances that 4 other users will also view the question and also vote to close?  (i.e., will my individual vote even do any good?  Is there any report to show recent close votes, so that others may also review and contribute supporting close votes?) Should we post some sort of an answer - even just something to the effect of &quot;this was already answered by the OP's own comment to his answer (above)&quot;? Would something like this be appropriate to flag for moderator attention, and let the moderators deal with it?  (Or would this be considered too trivial?) Should we rename the question title to something standard that can be used in a search exclusion?  (Maybe &quot;SOLVED:&quot;?)  Basically, how can I help to denote questions as &quot;This question is no longer in active search of an answer - though better answers may still be appreciated.&quot;? I've already reviewed , which was closed as a duplicate of  - but this requires effort on part of a user who may very likely no longer be active. Otherwise, is there something I should be doing to improve my search to filter out these types of questions? I've run across this many times, so I don't consider it to be a rare issue.  However, the last question like this I just ran across, prompting this question, was .  In this case, the question was self-answered by the OP in the form of a comment, this question is the OP's only question, the OP has no other visible activity on SO, and the OP hasn't been seen on SO since he registered and posted the question 5 months ago. Another one I just ran across is .  However, here the &quot;answer&quot; comment was posted by a reputable and recently active SO member.  Should I leave a comment directed at him, asking him to re-post his comment as an answer, or should I post my own answer echoing his comment?  (Or something else?) Yet another is .  Interestingly, the OP actually self-edited the question to include the &quot;SOLVED:&quot; prefix on to the question, instead of posting his resolving comment as an answer (and ideally accepting it) as he was asked to do by another comment.  This brings up another good idea - is there a &quot;standard&quot; we should use to rename the titles on these &quot;resolved but unanswered&quot; posts that could be used as a search exclusion?  (Also added to the above list.)
I want to prove that $\lim_{(x,y)\to (0,0)} \frac{\sin(x+y)}{x+y} = 1$  Is it sufficient to say that if $u = x+y$ then as $(x,y) \rightarrow (0,0)$ then $u \rightarrow 0$ and then evaluate $\lim_{u\to 0} \frac{\sin u}{u}$ which is 1 by L'Hôpital's rule?  I feel that this is somehow "cheating" and I would really like to prove it in a more rigorous way, i.e., by using an $\epsilon$ - $\delta$ argument.  I have tried for a long time to use the one variable version and prove that if $0 \lt \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} \lt \delta$ then somehow $0 \lt |x+y| \lt \delta$ and it would follow from the one variable case that $| \frac{\sin(x+y)}{x+y} - 1| \lt \epsilon$. However, because $|x+y| = 0$ when $y = -x$ I am not getting anywhere with this.  Any input on this would be helpful :) My wireless/WiFi connection does not work. What information is needed to diagnose the issue? Your situation   You have successfully installed Ubuntu.  You have just downloaded and booted Ubuntu live media.  The latest LTS (see also ) or latest non-LTS release are preferred. See the list of  that are currently supported.) You upgraded your Ubuntu installation to the latest release that the software updater offered you. WiFi worked before, but not now on the new release. You  to new hardware.   Your problem   The wireless of your laptop or desktop is not working. You tried switching the wireless switch off and on and you tried rebooting several times, but you don't see any WiFi access points. You can see your wireless access point, but you cannot establish a connection. You want to analyze the problem, but you don't know where to start or what information you can provide.   This question and answer was written to give people the wireless script that will provide the information needed in most cases to diagnose their wireless issue's.   Related questions Yesterday we started relativity on our physics class, and my professor taught us a few concepts. We did some examples on how things changed by looking them from different reference systems, and a paradox came to my mind from an example he did on the blackboard:  Suppose that we have a bug inside a hole (and suppose that the height of the bug is $0$). This hole is $L$ meters deep. There's a man outside the hole that wants to kill the bug with a nail of length $l$, with $l&lt;L$. Obviously, it's not possible for him to kill the bug by trying to push the nail in the hole. However, if the nail moves really fast, from it's reference system the hole will have a height $L_n&lt;L$, and if it moves fast enough then it will happen that $L_n&lt;l$, so he finally could kill the bug. On the other hand, the bug knows that from his reference system, the nail will have a lenght $l_b&lt;l$, so it would never reach him.  Is it possible to quantify the problem? How is it possible that the nail reach the bug from it's reference system and from the bug's reference system it's even smaller than before? Mirror cells so that a change in either cell updates the other I have 2 cells containing the same picklist values on separate sheets. I want the cells to mirror each other so that whenever I choose a new value in either sheet 1 or sheet 2, the value on the other sheet is updated to match the newly selected value. Is this possible?  UPDATE   Worksheet 1:   Worksheet Name: 'Live Forecast Tool' Cell containing picklist: C3:D3 (merged) Picklist values within range: ='SF MRF'!H5:Y5  Worksheet 2:   Worksheet Name: 'AH' Cell containing picklist: C3:D3 (merged) Picklist values within range: ='SF MRF'!H5:Y5    Cell C3:D3 needs to update to show the value that has been changed on the other sheet. What are the criteria for questions to be selected for Hot Network Questions? I really like the , where certain questions from the Stack Exchange Network are presented, along with a hotness rating that is described as &quot;arbitrary&quot; in its tooltip. Such questions also appear randomly on the sidebar on sites across the network, under the heading &quot;Hot Network Questions&quot;. How do these arbitrary hotness points work, and how are they used to select questions to appear in those lists? What is the difference between weight and mass? What is the difference between the weight of an object and the mass of an object? I Can't receive files via bluetooth on lxde $f,g$ continuous from $X$ to $Y$. if they are agree on a dense set $A$ of $X$ then they agree on $X$ Problem:      Suppose $f$ and $g$ are two continuous functions such that $f: X \to Y  $ and $g : X \to Y $. $Y$ is a a Hausdorff space. Suppose $f(x) = g(x)  $ for all $x \in A \subseteq X $ where $A$ is dense in $X$, then $f(x)  = g(x) $ for all $x \in  X $.   Attempt at a solution:  Put $h(x) = f - g $. Therefore, $h: X \to Y $ is continuous and $Y$ is Hausdorff by hypothesis. Also we know $h(x) = 0 $ for all $x \in A $ such that $A$ is dense in $X$. I want to show that $h(x)$ vanishes everywhere in $X$. We can show $h(x) = 0 $ for all $x \in X \setminus A $. Suppose $h(x) &gt; 0 $ on $X \setminus A$. Pick points $y_1,y_2 \in Y $. Since $Y$ is Hausdorff, can find open set $O_1, O_2 \subseteq Y $ which are disjoint such that $y_1 \in O_1$ and $y_2 \in O_2$. By continuity, $f^{-1}(O_1), f^{-1}(O_2)$ are open in $X$.   I know that if I can show that one of the $f^{-1}(O_i)$ lies in $X \setminus A $, then we would have a contradiction since we have non-empty open set in $X \setminus A$ and this implies $A$ cannot be dense in $X$. But this is the part I am stuck. Any help would greatly be appreciated.  Also, Would be be possible to prove this without using the Hausdorff condition on $Y$? How do I disable client side decoration globally in GNOME? I'm using Ubuntu GNOME 17.04. One encounters client side decoration (CSD) as most of the official GNOME applications (Nautilus, gedit, Evince etc.) use  (a combined title bar and toolbar, see linked screenshots) whereas other applications don't. This feature is disabled in Unity, all the applications use traditional separate title bars.  Screenshots (from ):     Nautilus with GtkHeaderBar   Nautilus without GtkHeaderBar     For consistency I want to disable GtkHeaderBars globally (in all the applications using it) and use separate title bars. Is there a way to achieve that?  I have heard of gtk3-nocsd package, but couldn't make it work with GNOME for all the applications. Maximum power transfer and Thevenin Why didn't the machine affect Bond in Spectre? How is ** implemented in Python? I'm wondering where I find the source to show how the operator ** is implemented in Python.  Can someone point me in the right direction? Close vote review audit flawed - fails without casting vote Having just  from any of the queues, it was reviewing close votes; however, this audit was flawed in that I didn't even cast a close vote.  Often I press the Close button to preview greater detail and sentiment of the closure, spawning the Why should this question be closed dialog box:    Especially for duplicates, where functionality is solely dependent on spawning this dialog.  From Closing > Duplicate, I can search or view selected duplicates:    Although, I realize general closure reasons are summarized on the page:    This question had 6-upvotes, but seemed very localized referencing subjective query is "taking too long" and even had a sqlfiddle link.  Maybe overly broad regarding performance tuning, the OP was posting like a forum with two answer posts to his own question  and  with one of those answers asking follow-up questions.    Wanting to gauge community response, current closure totals struck my curiosity.  So, I pressed the Close button and boom - oh, the humanity!  I failed, and didn't even cast a close vote.    Votes are not cast until a reason for closure is selected and Vote to Close is pressed.  Taking any review very seriously on this site, it only seems fair that my review quality is tested through actionable steps instead of clicking for more detailed information, leveraging the functional design of the close vote user interface.  Sure, it's complex to seed fake vote totals, and then there's controversy of mindless voting in the majority or people who simply cherry pick 4-vote questions.  Still though, it seems unfair I should hesitate to review further information of vote totals and duplicates before skipping due to the implementation of this audit. Using "that" and "this" interchangeably Incorrect plot using pgfplots (trigonometric functions like cos, sin and tan) "Effect" vs. "Affect" ATI Radeon HD 7770 no GPU rendering? I am a history teacher and I like to make my own maps (I can never find exactly what I want).  I am using QGIS 1.8 and .  I want to reproject their cross-blended hypso rasters into projections that are more familiar looking to my students, like Lambert Conic Conformal.  I have tried changing the crs for the whole project, and the warp and assign functions from the raster menu, and changing the crs for the raster layer itself.  None of these seem to work properly - the resulting maps are unrecognizable and extremely large (file size).  I feel like I am making some kind of basic mistake but I don't know where to begin with this.  Any help would be appreciated. .bash_history does not update in Git for Windows (git bash) Pronoun immediately following its antecedent Is placing a pronoun immediately after its antecedent in a sentence valid grammar?  Is there a term for this construction?  Some examples are:   President Obama, he gave a speech last night. The speech, it was about the financial system.   I hear this on the Planet Money podcast at least once per episode.