Q:

Is it against the rules to ask about a different proof for a proposition which has already been asked?

My question was marked as a duplicate by Did. I was trying to use a different proof involving continuity of measure and monotone convergence theorem for a question I asked before. I specified in the title my approach to the question so I don't believe this is a dupe.
Is it? If so, why? If not, am I doing anything against the rules?
Am I using cont of measure, monotone convergence thm and def of sup right in this probabilistic proof of a prop on real #s?
I asked to reopen here in meta, but I got downvotes and no replies.
I edited question trying to explain how my question is not a dupe but then Did did not reply.

A:

It's all about learning math now and curating great content for the future.
You are of course welcome, encouraged even, to propose a substantially different answer to an existing Question.  The advantages of this over what I see as your effort to create a siloed version of the Question (where you control the approach to be taken) seem evident.
I'm open to the possibility that there is something more substantive to the proposed variation/duplicate Question being posted.  As the Asker, the burden is (initially) yours to illuminate and/or motivate the novelty of the post, yet you wrote only "I would like to try a different approach" before launching into your own attack.
If you believe your new attempt is sufficient, I'd encourage submitting an answer on the previous Question.  If you know an insufficiency in such attempted proof, isolate the difficulty as best you can and frame a new Question around that aspect of a proof.

