It's standard practice here to close questions that are too elementary to be considered "research-level". But I think people have been too quick to label some questions as "too elementary", when in fact they describe very real research-level questions. For example:
In both cases, there is an undergraduate-level "textbook" answer. (For the first question: Sorting requires $\Omega(n\log n)$ comparisons. For the second question: Hilbert's 10th is undecidable.) But if we look past those easy answers, these are legitimate research-level questions in theoretical computer science.
Okay, but then how does one prove lower bounds for problems that can't be solved by comparison trees? Or lower bounds bigger than $\Omega(n\log n)$ for problems solvable in polynomial time? Or exponential lower bounds for NP-hard problems?
Okay, but then how does one actually find integer roots of polynomials in practice? Are there effective algorithms for broad and interesting classes of polynomials? Are there algorithms with provable approximation guarantees (for interesting classes of polynomials)?
In both cases, the deeper question is likely not what the original poster intended. (But StackExchange answers are for the entire community, not just for the original poster. And why should we shy away from blowing the original poster's mind?) And even if it were, the posts would require significant editing to bring the deeper question to the fore. (But editing good questions is generally preferred to closing them.)
Should we really close such questions? Or am I just being a smartass?