37
$\begingroup$

The purpose of this thread is to focus the attention of the community on posts that may require reopen and undeletion votes. A request should be posted as an answer below (one request per answer).

Some guidelines:

  • Please be polite, and respect the many different viewpoints in our diverse community. Please do not use this thread to engage in debates on site policy or other contentious matters. That should be done in a separate linked thread. The goal is to keep this meta thread free of tension, so that everyone feels comfortable posting here.

  • There is a reopen queue. Please wait until a post has gone through this queue, before posting here. Notice that the first edit after the question may push the question into the reopen review queue if the edit is done within 5 days of closure The question will only be added to the queue if you check the box to indicate that the question's original close reason has been addressed. And one can also use a reopen vote. (If the review has already been finished, it is shown on the timeline of the question.) When in doubt, wait 24 hours after the last substantive action.

  • To inform readers of the current (and past) states of the targeted post, please add the information Reopened or Undeleted at the start once the request has resulted in some action. (If the action is undone, add this too, like Reopened, Reclosed.)

  • Do not only post a request, like "request reopening of link". Instead, make a case for your concern. Yet keep in mind that it can be easier to get your request handled if you try to frame it in a way that takes the feedback the post received into account positively rather then seeking confrontation. Also, try to improve the post before posting here.

  • In case of "small" requests, like one missing vote, it can make sense to ask in chat instead of posting here. The room CURED is a reasonable place for such requests. The same guidelines apply there.

  • If you are involved in the thread which you post about (e.g., you asked the question or you answered it), please disclose this.

  • Please do not (vote to) delete answers to this thread unless there are serious problems.

Earlier versions of the thread that served as a model:

$\endgroup$
1
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque The moderation team made that change to the instructions several years ago. This is a request from the moderators. Please do not change it again. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Aug 5 at 16:43

111 Answers 111

Reset to default
1 2
3
4
1
$\begingroup$

Re-opened

confused by nonconstructive equivalence relations requests clarification of a specific statement on a specific page of a specific textbook:

I was reading "constructive analysis" by Bishop and right on page 15 he writes:…

And then the second paragraph describes the poster's confusion:

What makes me confused is why …

There is no sense in which this could be considered “needing details or clarity”, and none of the people who voted to close left any comment explaining what details were missing or what they felt was unclear.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Reminder: "If you are involved in the thread which you post about (e.g., you asked the question or you answered it), please disclose this." $\endgroup$
    – KReiser
    Commented Jan 28 at 17:39
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I will remember to do that next time. $\endgroup$
    – MJD
    Commented Jan 28 at 21:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually, your last comment on the thread ("I think I should probably not get farther into this without carefully looking at what Bishop actually says and how his book does things.") actually proves that the question was needing details or clarity, so it wasn't wrong to close it. $\endgroup$
    – user21820
    Commented Jan 30 at 7:51
1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted.

Would you please undelete this post? Existence of an $L^2$ function.? I found it interesting, but the asker deleted it just after receiving an answer.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ FYI, deletion after receiving an answer is worth flagging for moderator intervention. $\endgroup$
    – KReiser
    Commented Mar 28 at 19:26
1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

Please undelete this answer:

sequences and series - Associativity of infinite products - Mathematics Stack Exchange

It is, of course, possible that it contains a logical error. In that case, someone should point out the nature and location of the error. That should not be difficult, because the argument is short and simple, even if incorrect!

The only comments so far are those by the OP, and my replies. As far as I can tell, his comments reiterate the central difficulty of the question, without ever addressing the argument given in my answer.

On two occasions, I asked him to explain what is the matter with my answer:

  • "Which of the logical steps in the last paragraph of my answer do you suspect may be invalid? (I'm sorry if I've made an obvious goof; but I just can't see it.)"

  • "Nevertheless, Theorem 2 does apply. If you maintain that it does not, please say which of its hypotheses are not satisfied."

He ignored both of these requests, so I stopped replying to his comments.

I am glad to see that the question has now received more attention. I hoped that if this happened, some third party would resolve the impasse over my answer, even if the resolution was not in my favour. But all that has happened is that my answer has been deleted, even though no-one but the OP has made a critical comment on it! It has also received an upvote, so at least one other person must believe that my argument is valid.

According to the Help Center:

Why and how are some answers deleted? - Help Center - Mathematics Stack Exchange

"Answer posts that do not fundamentally answer the question may be removed. This includes answers that are:

  • commentary on the question or other answers
  • asking another, different question
  • "thanks!" or "me too!"-type responses
  • exact duplicates of other answers
  • barely more than a link to an external site (i.e. the actual answer is not included in the post)
  • not even a partial answer to the actual question"

None of those reasons apply here. The only possible remaining justification is this:

"Moderators can delete any answer, and trusted community members can vote to delete answers that have a score of -1 or lower (3 votes will result in deletion)."

That is at best a technical justification. But it is no moral justification at all, in view of the lack of any critical comments apart from a repetitive sequence of comments by the OP, who is presumably also the one user who downvoted the answer. Whoever the downvoter was, the score was -1, the last time I looked before today.

Even that narrow technical justification no longer exists (if it ever did), because the answer score is now 0 (=-1+1).

I hope that even if the answer is eventually deleted again, someone by then will have given a reason!

$\endgroup$
0
1
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please consider voting to reopen the following question: Why do Dedekind cuts have no maximum?

It was closed as missing details or clarity, but to my eyes the question is completely clear: it is asking what the consequences would be if we tried to alter the construction of $\mathbb R$ via Dedekind cuts. This seems like a perfectly natural question for someone who is learning about real analysis to ask.

[Disclosure: I have answered the question.]

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ It does seem like an opportunity for the OP of that Question to learn more about how Dedekind cuts work. I think the Question is perhaps in need of improvement because it hinges on the OP not really understanding what is meant by "have no maximum". I'll vote to reopen and leave a Comment about an apparent misunderstanding of the construction. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Commented Jul 29 at 20:31
1
$\begingroup$

Reopened

please consider reopening my question.
I'm not entirely sure why it was closed in the first place but it was closed for "needing more details or clarity", yet I believe I added all the details needed. My question even got a reply while it was open and they helped me find the answer as well as confirmed they found the question to be clear. In their answer too they seemed to fully understand what it was I was looking for.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please consider voting to reopen the following question: Alternative proof of Corollary 2.13 of Atiyah and Macdonald, on tensor products.

This was a question that I asked yesterday. I feel that the context I provided is sufficient, since I give a reference to the theorem in question, and explained the motivation behind why I seek an alternative proof.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted.

Please consider voting to undelete my answer, Cayley Table to Check Group
The question was whether, given a table in which no element appears twice in any row or column, one can decide if it's a group table without checking associativity. I demonstrate, by an example, that there can be a way to show such a table is not a group table without explicitly finding elements $a,b,c$ with $a(bc)\ne(ab)c$.

My answer in its original form was deleted for good reasons, but my edits have more than rectified the flaws in the original; still, my answer remains deleted.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It might be a good idea to get the two accounts merged as well. $\endgroup$
    – The Amplitwist
    Commented Sep 30 at 17:49
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened.

This question was just closed as opinion based. It is not opinion based (what are the opinions on which it is based?) and should be reopened. The question asks about connections between PDE and representation theory. A similar, if not the same, question exists on Mathoverflow since 2019. It is upvoted many times and has several answers.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I made some comments regarding this in the main thread itself. The "opinion" on which it is based seems to be whether the theory of automorphic forms falls under DE or not. Nevertheless, the MO thread seems to be a fairly objective/fact-based answer to the question. While the author revealed themselves to be beginning their Masters, a few close and down votes have come before this comment : that information is essential for deciphering the level of the student, and without it someone would have had to opine about the author's preference/aptitude for a certain subject. $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Commented Jan 11, 2022 at 6:26
  • $\begingroup$ That this is not opinion-based is not a fact but again an opinion-based statement. To me , it is definitely opinion-based. Therefore I cannot understand why it was reopened. $\endgroup$
    – Peter
    Commented Aug 20, 2023 at 8:58
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened after moderator intervention

While reading an an answer to What should I do if I find the answer to an old question of mine that was automatically deleted as abandoned? over at the main StackExchange Meta site, I came across the following comments:

This topic math.stackexchange.com/questions/2706956 with beautiful problem and my nice answer was deleted. How can we undelete this topic? Thank you! – Michael Rozenberg Aug 16, 2018

@MichaelRozenberg I'm afraid I probably wouldn't know enough to be able to comment on that Q&A even if I could see it. If you can tell what the problem with the question is and can fix it, edit and ask the community to undelete. Or raise the question on your site's meta. I don't know how things work on Math, but I've seen the community fix and undelete questions on other sites, if the problem is fixable. – Monica Cellio Aug 16, 2018 at 17:08

To justify a variance from the fourth guideline above...

While Michael Rozenberg appears to still be active on Mathematics 'proper', he does not seem to have an account at all here on Maths Meta.

As I don't know if anyone (e.g. the original question author) has followed up on why that answered question about triangle inequalities was deleted (and I can't view the deleted question to evaluate it myself, of course), I am posting it here in case there is anything promising within the referenced question and/or answer!

- Jim

$\endgroup$
6
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hi Jim, I give credit to MR for the answer (and his many answers over the years) , and this question looks rescuable, because it isn't a duplicate, and apart from lacking context has no other problem. For example, I believe that if we can edit the Euler and Gerritsen inequalities into the post, we can call for undeletion. Guidelines for context edits and rewrites will ensure that I can insert the required definitions, so I will do it myself. In hindsight, there is an answer that uses Gerritsen's inequality, so it is useful eventually. Therefore, I will edit the post shortly. $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Commented Jul 16, 2022 at 3:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The post has been deleted by a moderator, so cannot be undeleted by users. I have still edited the post, and will probably flag for undeletion. $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Commented Jul 16, 2022 at 3:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Reopened now, enjoy $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Commented Aug 3, 2022 at 5:59
  • $\begingroup$ You are welcome! $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Commented Aug 4, 2022 at 3:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Sarvesh In truth, it was not reopened here. It lives where it belongs. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Commented Nov 10, 2022 at 22:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SarveshRavichandranIyer: You rewarded a chronic PSQ poster, and a chronic PSQ answerer. Congratulations. $\endgroup$
    – user21820
    Commented Jan 9, 2023 at 6:50
0
$\begingroup$

Please consider reopening Are there any other fraction-to-decimal conversions like $\frac{5}{2} = 2.5$?. This is a nontrivial question motivated by an obvious natural curiousity. It is not clear to me what additional context anyone would expect or want a question like this to have, or how the site would be better off without this question and others like it.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It needs a computer program to test for these numbers, and/or a few more observations on $a,b$ (elimination of a few cases, necessary/sufficient conditions) right now. $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Commented Dec 16, 2022 at 2:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The post is now repoened. $\endgroup$
    – The Amplitwist
    Commented Dec 17, 2022 at 13:34
0
$\begingroup$

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2733432/applications-of-functions

I wrote an answer to this five years ago. Apparently the OP vandalized their question, so it eventually got deleted. But now I can't even see what the original question was; I can only see the most recent version. I think it should be undeleted and rolled back.

It was about determining the five parameters in $f(x)=a+b\exp(cx)\cos(dx+e)$, given only the graph $y=f(x)$.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ The edit history can be viewed by clicking on the date shown to the left of where of post authorship is shown. Even without the assumed vandalism, the Question strikes me as as bare problem statement, i.e. lacking context. Although I'm a curve-fitting fanboy, I don't think it is suitable as a Question for the site (but I can see you put much effort into your Answer). The OP has not been seen for years now. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 20:52
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ No, it cannot be viewed by low-rep users like me. $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 20:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In particular, I can't see whether it was or wasn't a good question at any time. $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 21:06
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The original version (current one is edit 2) shows this image of a graph and asks how to fit a function (omitting the constant offset $a$ as you relate it above). The OP never supplied the missing parameter nor responded to Comments by you and JJacquelin. If it's important to get your Answer back, I'd email it to you (reach me at username at gmail). $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 21:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have access to the answer. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/… $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 22:49
  • $\begingroup$ It looks like the question has been rolled back. (I didn't notice until now.) A little thank to @user1729. [sic] $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    Commented Nov 16, 2023 at 4:55
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

This question was closed for lack of context, though the question is simple enough to stand on its own. I spent quite some time coming up with an answer only to have the question closed shortly before my answer was posted and think that the methods used in the answer provide sufficient motivation.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Given that the question is unarguably a PSQ, likely many users will disagree with reopening unless the question is improved, cf. EOQS site policy $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 20:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It's a question about line bundles on a manifold, it has a long & detailed answer. The question currently has two votes to delete, and I think it would be sad if the content of that answer were to be removed from this site. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 23:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerry Then why not improve the question to prevent that? $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Commented May 19, 2023 at 2:15
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Bill, there is a general reason, and a specific reason. The general reason is that many of our fellow users believe that only the person posting a poor question is allowed to improve it. No one else is allowed to put words into that poster's mouth, as it were. The specific reason is that I wouldn't know a line bundle on a manifold from a homotopy type-theory, so I am singularly unsuited to improving that particular question. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Commented May 19, 2023 at 4:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In general, I don't think a question can/should be saved by it's answer. Any answerer has a responsibility to ensure that they answer good question, and "good" isn't just about mathematical quality (as this is not MathOverflow). $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented May 20, 2023 at 10:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I used to believe that as well. The reason behind that thinking was that we shouldn't be guessing any posters' intentions from their poor question at all lest we get it wrong, and that if we were to do that, then many posters would just dump their question knowing that someone would improve it, so they're not putting as much effort into their argument. Over time, I think I've come to realize that the second argument is a slippery slope and the first can be countered by placing some trust on editors to get things right. $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Commented May 27, 2023 at 11:36
0
$\begingroup$

Please reopen

Let $H,K \subseteq G$. Prove $H,K \lhd G$ and $|K| = [G:H]$.

It was closed as needing focus, but if you know the first homomorphism theorem of groups, it's one question (with a normality check that ensures you know which of $\ker\varphi$ and ${\rm im}\varphi$ is automatically normal).

I have answered the question.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Almost surely this is a dupe. $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Commented Aug 20, 2023 at 16:14
  • $\begingroup$ Find one and we'll know for sure, @BillDubuque. $\endgroup$
    – Shaun Mod
    Commented Aug 23, 2023 at 19:43
  • $\begingroup$ Before posting your answer, your searched and failed to find a dupe? $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Commented Aug 23, 2023 at 20:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Of course, @BillDubuque. $\endgroup$
    – Shaun Mod
    Commented Aug 23, 2023 at 20:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Bill, it also copies an earlier answer that same day. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Commented Sep 9, 2023 at 21:21
  • $\begingroup$ It wasn't copied, @amWhy; I explained it in more detail. That's allowed. $\endgroup$
    – Shaun Mod
    Commented Sep 9, 2023 at 21:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It don't think it should have been deleted. $\endgroup$
    – Shaun Mod
    Commented Sep 9, 2023 at 21:52
0
$\begingroup$

I request to please review The question https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4207341/if-all-the-sides-of-an-n-sided-polygon-are-equal-is-it-always-a-regular-polygon

I have provided My own attempts to understand the concept, and asked a genuine question that bothered me, Recently I was Banned from Asking questions On MSE, since then I have been trying to review posts that were deleted or closed or received negative votes, Also I have been contributing to MSE by providing answers to questions that I know the solution of..

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened 18 Nov 23; closed again 25 Nov 23, then deleted by Community Bot

Please reopen

https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4802630/104041

It has context. The OP was overthinking the answer.

Note: I answered it.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I suspect that the problem statement has gotten a little garbled. There would seem no point in requiring $G$ (a subgroup of an abelian, even cyclic, group) to have order $6$ unless one was also meant to have $a,b,c$ mutually distinct and different from $1$. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Commented Jan 29 at 18:47
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened; reclosed as not suitable; deleted by Community Bot

Please consider reopening https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4666575/g-is-a-p-group-implies-a-normal-subgroup-of-order-p-is-central/4666624#4666624

It has been closed as a duplicate but the prior problem was asking for finite groups only, while the text of the new question explicitly asked for infinite groups to be covered.

Thanks for your time

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ As it stands the question is a problem-statement question: it provides no context, no effort and doesn't meet the site standards (which I note was mentioned to you as a comment to the answer you've provided). The question needs to be improved before reopening. $\endgroup$
    – postmortes
    Commented Mar 27, 2023 at 17:38
  • $\begingroup$ As @postmortes states, the question does not meet the quality guidelines for the site. I have closed the question for that reason. The banner at the top of the question should now point you in the direction of advice on asking questions. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Mar 27, 2023 at 17:55
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Let's be clear. I requested that this not be closed as a duplicate. You have fixed that - thank you. On site standards, you guys are the experts and I am not requesting that you open it now. Thanks for your time. $\endgroup$
    – Laska
    Commented Mar 28, 2023 at 0:54
0
$\begingroup$

I vote to undelete this question, which I will call Question #1, which had been deleted by the author.

I came to Question #1 from Question #2 by the same author, which I came to from the very recent Question #3 by a different author.

The unfortunate chain of events was that Question #1 was partially answered in the comments, but that commenter declined to write an official answer because they did not address the third sub-question. Question #1 was then closed for "needing details or clarity" (perhaps because of that third subquestion). The author subsequently deleted the question, presumably in favor of question #2.

Once Question #1 is undeleted, my intention is to lightly edit it to address the reasons for its closure (in particular by deleting subquestion 3), and then when it is re-opened I will cut-and-paste the comments into a community-wiki answer.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I've undeleted #1, and closed #2 as a dupe of #1 and deleted. I'll let the community decide what to do with #3. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Apr 5 at 15:55
0
$\begingroup$

Please consider undeleting my answer to "Looking for a conceptual proof of the pythagorean theorem from first principles" question.

I have't received any feedback so it's confusing to me as to why the post was deleted. It gives a concrete (and not even remotely mentioned in existing discussion) answer to the following part of the question:

If I use the dot product to "prove" the pythagorean theorem I need to know why we use the dot product from first principles.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Please consider reopening the Priority of subscript and superscript operations question again. I asked some days ago and it was reopened. Today it closed again with another reason. They ask to provide additional context. Could someone help me understand what do they want and in which way the question is not sufficient and "This question does not meet Mathematics Stack Exchange guidelines"?

I can't get any idea why this question is not good here.

$\endgroup$
12
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ When you are asked to improve a question, do not post a new question. Improve the old question, using the edit button. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Jun 17 at 17:02
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson, I did so if you look at the changes history and this didn't help. I had no idea what people what from me and why they consider the question bad and what details and clarity they needed. Why people can't explain at least after edit what is wrong with the question? Can you? $\endgroup$
    – Damir Tenishev
    Commented Jun 17 at 17:36
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I am telling that, from the point of view of moderation, if you have a question closed, then post a new, nearly identical question, the new, nearly identical question is going to be closed and deleted. You need to improve the original question, not post a new question. I am sorry that no one has explained how you can improve your original question---but explaining how to improve your question is not part of my job description (as a moderator). $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Jun 17 at 17:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson, so should I post here another request to reopen the original (first) closed question separately or can we consider this request under this answer here? (I copied text from a new question to the old one). How to get the old one reopened or at least get comments what's wrong with it? $\endgroup$
    – Damir Tenishev
    Commented Jun 17 at 17:40
  • $\begingroup$ It does seem odd to me that users were able to close a question as a duplicate of a closed question that had no answers. I thought that was not possible. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Commented Jun 18 at 0:07
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I could vote for that (and was the first voter) because both questions are from the same author. The closure notice also instead says "This question already exists:", not "This question already has answers here:". $\endgroup$
    – peterwhy
    Commented Jun 18 at 0:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ OK, I found this at the help pages: "questions may only be marked as duplicates of unanswered questions (a) on meta sites, (b) when the questions share the same author, or (c) when closed by a moderator." So, clause (b) applies here, as the questions share the same author. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Commented Jun 18 at 5:47
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson, in the closing message of the Priority of subscript and superscript operations it is said: "Add details and clarify the problem you’re solving. This will help others answer the question. You can edit the question or post a new one ." I did exactly as I was asked. I edited the question, got no reasons for not reopening and posted a new one. What of those did I wrong? $\endgroup$
    – Damir Tenishev
    Commented Jun 18 at 19:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Posting the same question again, is not posting a new question. $\endgroup$
    – Nij
    Commented Jun 18 at 23:09
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Nij, why then it is stated as the recommendation for actions for the closed question? This is totally misleading. When I see this, I consider this as a step to do in the specific situation and I follow. Of course, I can post a new one question not related to this, this is too obvious to state in the comment for closure. So, I reworked the question and reposted a new one. $\endgroup$
    – Damir Tenishev
    Commented Jun 19 at 12:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Reworking the same question is still not a new question. Xander Henderson has already made the process clear: edit the existing post and flag it for action. Just because it is listed as an option, does not mean it's the appropriate option for you. $\endgroup$
    – Nij
    Commented Jun 19 at 22:50
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Nij, I've edited the question and got no response. This "guess what we need" game is quite counterproductive when questions are closed without any comments with very generic reason. Hard time when people don't recognize their mistakes (misleading guides) and use force to persuade instead of improving and helping. And "it's the appropriate option for you" sounds too personal. Would be much better if people in such circumstances say ""it's the appropriate option for this particular case". $\endgroup$
    – Damir Tenishev
    Commented Jun 20 at 14:22
0
$\begingroup$

(Closed, re-opened, closed by moderator,) re-opened.

Please reopen Exhaustion by compact sets $\implies$ exhaustion-function?

Note: I've answered the question.

The question has motivation: existence of exhaustion-function implies exhaustible by open sets, and Hausdorff + exhaustible by open sets implies exhaustion-function.

Additionally, albeit written in the comments, the question is from an exam. Nonetheless, the question has motivation on its own even without this.

I've added the proof that Hausdorff + exhaustible by compact sets implies existence of exhaustion-function and tried to reopen the question. I think this is appropriate and ethical because it agrees with

You can add in relevant definitions, theorems, or simple background and motivation.

of this post. It doesn't count as an "attempt", but as additional motivation, and certainly agrees with community principles such as keeping this site a repository for excellent questions. Nonetheless, the question was closed after reopening by a moderator who thought otherwise, and my added motivation was rolled back to a previous edit. I disagree with this.

Finally, my answer includes an important example of a $T_1$, non-$T_2$, non-compact, exhaustible by compact sets space which can be added to pi-base in the future, so its important for the purpose of adding it as a citation later.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ (1) If the question, in its current state, as written by the original author, is acceptable, it should be reopened. If so, then all of the additional content regarding your attempt to rewrite the question is not relevant. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Jun 25 at 17:02
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ (2) Regarding your edits: the intention of the policy is to preserve the original author's intent. The list of things which are "okay" are neither exhaustive nor contextless. Sometimes, it is not okay to add definitions (for example) if the addition of those definitions would "modif[y] the author's intent by presuming the author's level of sophistication and mathematical maturity." (math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/32402) The intention of that policy is to prevent other users from rewriting a question in a way which misrepresents the original asker. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Jun 25 at 17:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (3) Even if you assume that the list "definitions, theorems, or simple background and motivation" is exhaustive, you did not add any of these things. You added a proof to a theorem which was already in the question. This is not a theorem, nor a definition, nor simple background nor motivation. It is not at all clear from the question or comments below it that this proof is in line with what the author knows (e.g. lots of askers ask questions about theorems, but have no idea how to prove those theorems). $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Jun 25 at 17:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (4) Even if we grant that the proof of the theorem adds relevant context (which is, in and of itself, something which could be debated), your edits more than doubled the length of the question. By the time your edits were complete, it was no longer the original author's question, but your version of that question. The above cited post on rewriting questions gives a procedure for rewriting other people's questions which does not involve hijacking the original question. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Jun 25 at 17:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (5) Finally, whether or not your answer is a good answer is completely irrelevant to whether or not the question meets the quality standards of the site (which, to be clear, I have expressed no opinion on, one way or the other). There are many users, for example, who believe that it is not unreasonable to downvote a good answer if the voter feels that the question is not appropriate for the site. See, for example, math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/25835 and meta.stackexchange.com/q/144670 . $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Jun 25 at 17:17
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Xander, thank you for the clearest, most detailed exposition of this reprehensible policy. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Commented Jun 25 at 23:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I am not sure why "reprehensible", but I can't say that I really like the policy. Unfortunately, it is one of those compromises which exists to keep the site from devolving into utter chaos---the policy on rewriting other's work exists because we have policies which require users to add context to their questions. We have policies on context because we don't have a policy which forbids users from asking homework questions (note that, for example, Physics does have such a policy). $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Jun 26 at 12:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If I had my druthers, we would have a policy forbidding homework, and we wouldn't need all of these other policies. But that is not the way that things have fallen out. So we have compromises which no one likes. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Jun 26 at 12:11
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Request to reopen Arranging the numbers $0$ to $n$ "This question needs details or clarity."

My initial edit was rejected so I have now totally reworded the question. There was also feedback that the title was unclear so I've now changed that too. I don't think it got submitted for another review though.

The initial question wasn't well defined and had some non-sensical sentences, all of which are now fixed. I've also provided additional context by expanding on the author's current attempts at a solution

I posted a solution which has gained $8$ upvotes so I believe there is genuine interest in this problem and the issues with clarity have been resolved.

If the question still doesn't meet Math.StackExchange guidelines, please can a specific reason be given so I can fix it.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ To whoever downvoted this, can I point out my 'New contributor' tag. I have tried to fix the problems with the question and I have posted here to seek further guidance if I have not done so. A downvote with no comment does nothing and frankly disincentivises new users from trying to contribute. Need I remind you: "Please consider adding a comment if you think this post can be improved.". This should be especially important when dealing with a 'New contributor'. $\endgroup$
    – Adam Dougall
    Commented Jul 30 at 18:02
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened, reclosed.

Prove that every well defined function satisfies $\epsilon-\delta$ definition if $\exists \delta$ and $\forall x$ quantifiers are swapped

The question was corrected with view of the initial criticisms

For what it's worth, this is my own question

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ New meta mention of this question at math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/37665/… $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Commented Aug 7 at 12:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ See the instructions at the top. "Do not only post a request, like "request reopening of link". Instead, make a case for your concern." $\endgroup$
    – D.W.
    Commented Aug 7 at 20:36
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Reopen request:

Are path-connected LOTS also locally path-connected?

Question has been edited to define terms.

Transparency: I have commented on and down voted because of said undefined terms.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Reopen request: one issue of matrix determinant in Reduced Rank Regression

The OP asked a valid statistical question, and

  • has stated the context (reduced rank regression),
  • has stated the main question (i.e., the 2nd equality in the first equation), and
  • has included what s/he tried / believed incorrect.

PS:

Kindly advised by @Gerry Myerson that I might include the following fact -

  • I have already posted an answer to the question. To me, there is nothing unclear in the question.

Up to now,

  • No comments on the original question has been posted asking for any clarifications.
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Thanks for the advice. I just edited the request. $\endgroup$
    – Zack Fisher
    Commented Sep 1 at 7:42
-1
$\begingroup$

Reopened, reclosed, deleted

I edited my post. Can you reopen it? I accept the answer.

@banana told me to do it

Sorry why my answer gets into comments? < 50 reputation?

$\endgroup$
1
-1
$\begingroup$

Reopened, Re-closed, reopened

Please consider reopening Show that the $\ell_p$ norm of $x$ as $p \to 0$ is the support of $x$

The post is edited and the context is quite clear as OP mentioned in a comment.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I actually don't agree that the OP's mention of a page in a linked preview (of a $$60+ book) is proper or clear context. The proposition itself seems relatively easy to demonstrate (as it follows from solving the case $n=1$). Before banging our heads over trying to get the OP to provide context, perhaps we should check for potential duplicates? $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Commented Aug 14, 2022 at 3:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ See my comments under that post, and also : this book is open-source, see here. It is not the demonstration that one must focus on here : given that the author is coming from the point of view of compressed sensing, answering this question requires one to also understand how and why this question relates to CS : the answer being that as an identity, it is used for $l_0$ norm minimization problems, which form a large part of sparse matrix linear algebra. This question is relevant beyond the mere identity via context $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Commented Aug 14, 2022 at 4:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @hardmath: I do not think that "the OP's mention of a page" alone is context. "Context" means a lot of things. To me, the very definition of the $l_p$ norm and the $\textrm{supp}$ are all context. // If it were to be closed as a duplicate, it should be reopened first I suppose. What is a "$$60+ book"? $\endgroup$
    – user1046533
    Commented Aug 14, 2022 at 11:24
-1
$\begingroup$

Request to undelete my post https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4698344/861687. This question was deleted by community bot. The only reason I see for deletion is downvote. Perhaps some user find it multiple questions in one post but I asked only one question. Since comments are “temporary”, I edited my post to include main idea of answer. I don’t know what algorithm is being used for community bot, but certainly they want to suppress net downvote posts.

$\endgroup$
14
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This was auto-deleted by the community user because it had a score of -1 or lower and no answers, no active bounty, and no lock. How do you plan to improve the question, and why didn't you make any improvements in the last month? $\endgroup$
    – KReiser
    Commented Jun 19, 2023 at 15:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KReiser that post is a simple question not a thesis, how can I improve it (genuinely)? I can’t improve all my $280$ questions post to keep them “active”. It seems like nowadays posts are temporary too. $\endgroup$
    – user264745
    Commented Jun 19, 2023 at 15:52
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ For one, you're asking three separate questions in one post, which was noted in the comments on the day you made your post. You don't have to edit all of your posts all of the time (over-editing can be a problem too) but when you get immediate feedback like the comment to ask one question at a time plus two downvotes on the same day you make your post, I don't understand why you wouldn't try addressing that until a month passes and your post is automatically deleted. (The comment about posts being temporary is a red herring - do you really want every post at -2 and no answers hanging around?) $\endgroup$
    – KReiser
    Commented Jun 19, 2023 at 16:58
  • $\begingroup$ @KReiser I already mentioned in above answer and comment of that post that I asked one question only. I just wrote entire theorem as it is written in book. I don’t know why you think I asked three separate questions. That post got downvoted because I was experiencing targeted downvoting during that time. Anyway I don’t care about downvotes. With multiple questions and downvotes (way to justify deletion of post) out of the way. Not all user prefer to write short answer in answer section, so they instead comment on post. That’s why I’m not surprised with no answer, I got answer in comment. $\endgroup$
    – user264745
    Commented Jun 19, 2023 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ Your question can be interpreted in 2 separate ways, which makes it a bad question. Firstly, it could be a "check my proof" question of a 4 part question. Secondly, it could be asking to formalise your solution to part (iv). I'm guessing you wanted the second "formalise" one, but then why give both your solution and the solution in the book to the other 3 parts? What does it add? It is confusing. (If it does add something, then don't make the reader join the dots for themself, because everyone will join them differently.) $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 8:04
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729 I have edited my post. $\endgroup$
    – user264745
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 9:44
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, it looks better. However, you still have too much extra information. Why include Hungerford's proofs of the other parts? Also, if your "edit" at the end answers the question, then you should have added this as an answer rather than as an edit to the question. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729 I will edit my post to exclude extra stuff. Since answer is not mine, I don't think it is appropriate to make other people comment into an answer, that is just my opinion. $\endgroup$
    – user264745
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 10:42
  • $\begingroup$ In this situation, it would be appropriate to write an answer giving appropriate accreditation (e.g. link to the comments), and check the "community wiki" box. Community wiki's mean that the answer isn't due to a single person, and so noone gets reputation points. The system does not like questions which have no "answer", and so for example will delete them like what happened here. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 11:44
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729 now unfortunately can't write answer. I don't know the exact statistic of unanswered question but significant number of post are unanswered and inactive then all post should be deleted not only few (randomly chosen). Posts are not lottery. $\endgroup$
    – user264745
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 12:44
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Deleted posts are not "randomly chosen". Your question satisfied specific conditions, so was automatically deleted. This was addressed in the first comment above, by KReiser. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 13:44
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729 I don't need to emphasis how wide scope those conditions are. All most all (above 90%, just my guess) unanswered question falls into that category. $\endgroup$
    – user264745
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 14:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The issue is not with the conditions, but with your question(s). Your current draft is better, but could still be greatly improved. For example, it still contains too much extra content, and I also do not know why you are asking the question: (a) You have Hungerford's proof, why do you need another? (b) What do you not like about your existing proof? Why is it informal? Your reader is busy - guide them quickly to your issue rather than expecting them to spot why you think it is too informal on a first reading. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 16:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ [This is my final comment though, as this is not the correct place for further suggestions for improvement.] $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 16:17
-1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted.

Consider undeleting Taxi distance count to all lattice points at specified distance from the lattice origin and of a specified dimensionality? if you think that the Question-Answer pair is legitimate.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Please reopen this question , HERE I add clarification about the whole context , also I have added known and unknown variables

$\endgroup$
2
-1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, and then deleted again

Please consider undeleting the following question about limits to infinity: What makes a number big?

I think this question meets the context standards set out on this site, since it identifies a hand-wavey explanation that I suspect many people received when they are first introduced to limits, namely that a limit to infinity is "the value of the function as $x$ gets really big". I certainly remember hearing variants of this "explanation" when I was at school, e.g. that the limit to infinity tells you "what happens when $x$ blows up".

Of course, that "explanation" falls far short of the standards of rigorous mathematics, but that is precisely the reason the question was asked in the first place.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Okay, folks, deleting answers in this thread is generally not okay. Downvote if you disagree, but please do not delete. If nothing else, it is best that the record remain public. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Commented Aug 11, 2023 at 13:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The question on main has a very colorful history. Posted 26 Dec 21 4:12; closed 9:16; opened 27 Dec 21 2:09; closed 13:34; deleted 15:08; undeleted 14 Feb 22 12:52; deleted 28 Feb 22 10:10; undeleted 9 Mar 22 7:21; deleted 6 June 22 5:06; undeleted 7 Aug 23 18:33. And I've left out several instances of "left closed in review". $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Commented Aug 12, 2023 at 23:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerry What makes a history colorful? Big numbers? $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Commented Nov 10, 2023 at 20:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Bill, would you prefer "eventful"? $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Commented Nov 10, 2023 at 20:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerry It was wordplay on the question title ("what makes a number big?"). $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Commented Nov 10, 2023 at 20:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Bill, what makes a comment subtle? $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Commented Nov 10, 2023 at 21:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question has been deleted again. I would appreciate if any of the delete voters could explain their reasoning. $\endgroup$
    – Joe
    Commented Dec 18, 2023 at 16:15
1 2
3
4

You must log in to answer this question.

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