This edition was reject.

The justification given is that

This edit deviates from the original intent of the post. Even edits that must make drastic changes should strive to preserve the goals of the post's owner

but I don't really understand how I deviated from the original answer.

The only thing I did was to fix the confusion done in the answer, because it uses the letters M and N to represent at the same time the sets (domain and range) and the sizes of those sets (so, positive integers).

I didn't change anything else.

For instance, the answer says "[...] function from M to N", which means that M and N are sets. And so, it is said "[...] consider M the set {1,2,...,M}", which means that M now is a integer or M is a recursive set (which obviously isn't the case).

When the PMF of the HGD (hypergeometric distribution) is defined, both M and N are also used as integer values (take a look at the quotient involving involving combinations in the middle of the answer).

The way Boldyreva's paper avoids that issues is by defining M and N as integers and then defining the domain and the range as [M] and [N], respectively. And that is exactly what I done.

This is the first time I complain about a edit rejection and I'm doing that just because I think this edition is really necessary. So, I'd be glad to know what is wrong with it or, in case there is nothing wrong, it would be great if it was accepted.

Thank you very much.


Things that made me reject your edit were, for example…

  1. Original:

    where the number of marked balls is $|M|$ and unmarked balls is $|N|-|M|$.

    Your edit:

    where the number of marked balls is $M$ and unmarked balls is $N-M$.


  1. Original:

    Start with the entire domain $M$ and range $N$. Call $y \leftarrow \frac{max(N)}{2}$ our range gap.

    Your edit:

    Start with the entire domain $[M]$ and range $[N]$. Call $y \leftarrow \frac{N}{2}$ our range gap.

At first glimpse this looked like drastic changes and due to that, I obviously missed the general intend of your edit. Your explanation definitely provides an enlightening heads-up related to your motivation and why you edited what the way you did.

Anyway… related to accepting the edit: the bad news is that edits can’t be accepted after they were rejected. But if you would be kind enough to re-suggest the edit, it would show up in the queue again as new suggestion that could then be accepted. (Sorry for related inconveniences. The system doesn’t offer an easier way to handle things in situations like this one.)

  • $\begingroup$ I removed those vertical bars (absolute value, or cardinality) because now M and N are positive integers and we don't need to use it anymore. $\endgroup$ – Hilder Vitor Lima Pereira Jun 18 '16 at 19:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I submitted a new edit suggestion. Thanks for answering! $\endgroup$ – Hilder Vitor Lima Pereira Jun 18 '16 at 19:27
  • $\begingroup$ @Vitor Thanks for understanding… $\endgroup$ – e-sushi Jun 18 '16 at 19:29
  • $\begingroup$ Don't worry. Let's keep improving crypto SE. (: $\endgroup$ – Hilder Vitor Lima Pereira Jun 18 '16 at 19:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Vitor Sounds like a plan. (btw: “Approved”) $\endgroup$ – e-sushi Jun 18 '16 at 19:34

You must log in to answer this question.

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