44
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

The purpose of this thread is to help focus the attention of the community on posts that may require exceptional handling. This includes requests for reopen and undeletion votes. A request should be posted as an answer below.

Please do not use this thread to engage in debates on contentious matters (e.g. reasons for closure). 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. Please be polite, and respect the many different viewpoints in our diverse community.

To inform readers of the current (and past) states of the targeted post, please prepend tags such as:

Reopened, reclosed or

Undeleted

at the start of the answer when a change of status occurs. (This also makes it easier to browse through the list by creating a visual difference for posts that still require action.)

Beware that "short" requests such as "request reopening of " may be automatically converted to comments by the SE software, so you may need to write more (e.g. why you think that the question should be reopened or undeleted).

Notice that the first edit after the question was put on-hold pushes the question into reopen review queue, if the edit was done withing 5 days of closure. So does a reopen vote. It is reasonable to wait until the review is finished before posting here. (If the review has already been finished, it is shown on the timeline of the question.)


(description copied from the old thread)

As has been proposed in chat (and seconded by a couple of users), it seems that it is time to create a new thread for reopen and undeletion requests. The old thread (as of now) has over $200$ answers, and it is really hard to scroll through the mass of old and/or possibly outdated answers--voting is a mess, too. (It's especially problematic for 10k users who can see the deleted posts.)

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by quid discussion Jul 15 '18 at 10:45

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

230 Answers 230

3
$\begingroup$

Reopened, closed as duplicate

This question was closed as opinion based (although two votes were to close as a duplicate). It should be reopened and re-closed properly as a duplicate, since this topic has been discussed before. Two immediate duplicates:

  1. Is $0$ a natural number?
  2. Should $\mathbb{N}$ contain $0$?

There might be more out there.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ No, since the links are in the comments below, whereas a duplicate banner is on the top of the post and the first thing you see. Moreover the question is in fact a duplicate. "Closed is closed" is not true, there are different kinds of closure for questions, it can be closed since it's off topic, or since it's missing details (which is under off topic, but not really off topic), or it can be opinion based, or it can be a duplicate. Different closures mean different things. This question is a duplicate and should be closed as such. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 7 '15 at 23:32
  • $\begingroup$ So... "why is there such a conflict in conventions?" automatically make bad questions for the site? I disagree. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 7 '15 at 23:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Daniel: Thanks. It's a shame the dupe-hammer cannot be applied to link to multiple questions at the same time. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 8 '15 at 0:01
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed, that would be a nice feature. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jan 8 '15 at 0:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Daniel: Although unlikely to be implemented (since if something is a duplicate of several questions it "means" that either it contains multiple questions or those questions are duplicates; of course this is not at all true in reality, but philosophically it seems to be the guiding idea). $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 8 '15 at 0:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf: I think on MSE it is sometimes done. Shog9 can even close a closed question or something like that. $\endgroup$ – quid Jan 8 '15 at 1:11
  • $\begingroup$ @quid: Yes, but he's using godmode cheats. :-) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 8 '15 at 7:14
3
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I am requesting my posting here to be reopened, since I have revised the question to the point of being a multiple choice question, so that the issue of "... it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking..." should no longer be an issue.

Thank you.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I'd like this question reopened. The confusion in the question is perfectly clear - the OP does not have a clear distinction between the terms 'sequence' and 'number' - but this could be easily remedied by an answer that explicitly points this out, explains the distinction between sequences and numbers, and then goes on to explain that sequences can have limits. The sequence $n \in \mathbb{N} \mapsto (9/10)^n k$ does not literally equal the number $0$, but it has a limit, and that limit does indeed equal $0$. On the other hand, the number $0.9999\ldots$ literally equals $1$.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Reopened

This question was put on hold as being unclear about what is being asked but as can be seen on comments there had hints on how to improve. Everything who was suggested was adopted to improve the question and no new comments came in about why is it unclear. I therefore request the question to be reopen as I really need answers to it.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The question just had a major revision. $\endgroup$ – AlexR Feb 5 '15 at 22:15
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerry For consistency, please note all the other answers (except for one....) use a new format for status update. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Feb 6 '15 at 8:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Najib, any system strong enough to be complete will be inconsistent. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Feb 6 '15 at 23:07
3
$\begingroup$

Reopened

The author of Probability of going into an absorbing state seems to have an idea of an approach, but there are better approaches to suggest. Good hints will be useful to the author and to future readers. The methods of attack will be useful to general absorption problems. I believe that the question should be reopened so that hints can be provided.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Closed, Reopened, Closed as duplicate

This question should have been closed as a duplicate of

I can't re-close right now due to system constraints.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ +1 It is also too broad - explaining "every little detail" would require a book (and there are already many books that discuss induction in great detail, to which the OP should be directed). $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Feb 21 '15 at 22:39
3
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I wish to appeal for the reopening of one of my questions: Evaluating $\int e^{\Gamma(x)} dx $ and $\int \pi^{\Gamma(x)} dx $

I have almost nothing more to say; question was even bolded in the original post, and still was marked as unclear. I do not know why; nevertheless I've done what I can in editing it, and see absolutely no grave mistakes/issues with my question. Lot of interesting insights and answers have been lost due to the fact people are not able to answer/give hints. Please help me reopen this.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why did you edit @Najib? It was there in every answer, hence I did that... $\endgroup$ – Kugelblitz Mar 1 '15 at 9:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Only the change in status is recorded, not the original status. It makes it easier to browse through the list by creating a visual difference between requests for which nothing has changed (and thus still require action), and those for which something has changed (usually the issue has been resolved). Moreover, the format you used was different from the format of all the other requests... $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Mar 1 '15 at 9:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As for your question... I suggest that you edit the title. "The most complex integral you've encountered" is not very descriptive, it could be pretty much anything depending on who you are... I also think that putting the actual question before the background would be a good idea: people read from top to bottom, and having to scan the text for the question might be off-putting. Other than that your question isn't really unclear (though I'm not sure why you expect a nice form for these integrals). $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Mar 1 '15 at 9:54
  • $\begingroup$ I did that believing I'd remove some ambiguity about the status that way, but I understand now. Ty for the edit. Will incorporate your suggestions. $\endgroup$ – Kugelblitz Mar 1 '15 at 9:54
  • $\begingroup$ @NajibIdrissi Done. $\endgroup$ – Kugelblitz Mar 1 '15 at 10:01
3
$\begingroup$

[RE-OPENED]

I would like for this question to be reopened. It was only closed in the first place because of a minor typo in the title of the question; the OP has since fixed the typo in question.

There are three answers to the question one of which has been accepted.

The stated reason for putting the question on hold is not valid.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Your answer appear to be false. As the typo apparently was in the post not the title. Perhaps you could fix this. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 7 '15 at 11:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I give up.${}{}$ $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Mar 7 '15 at 12:16
  • $\begingroup$ @quid, good point. I don't think that my answer loses any utility by not being exactly the one the OP meant to ask. In fact I'll often given an answer to a similar question which is not identical to the OP's in order to discourage cheating. That is the OP should at least have to apply the method himself. I'll just add a note at the beginning of my answer mentioning the discrepancy. $\endgroup$ – Spencer Mar 7 '15 at 19:54
  • $\begingroup$ This seems a reasonbale solution given the situation at hand. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 7 '15 at 19:58
3
$\begingroup$

Duplicate redirected

This question has been marked a duplicate of How come the number $N!$ can terminate in exactly $1,2,3,4,$ or $6$ zeroes but never $5$ zeroes? which on its turn is marked a duplicate of Highest power of a prime $p$ dividing $N!$. It would be better to link the first question directly to that last one.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Reopened, Reclosed, Rereopened

I would like this feature request to be re-opened.

It was closed as a duplicate, not of a feature request, but of a question from someone who was curious to know why missing details make a question off-topic. I am not curious to know why this is done. I posted a feature request, not a request to be told why that is done. I no longer care why it is done because I am satisfied that it is wrong and I don't want to study the reasons why rude people are rude. I'm sure the study of why people do things that are wrong is fascinating, but it's off topic in my feature request.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

[Re-opened]

I think that Is the axiom of choice really all that important? should be reopened.

I can cast a unilateral vote to reopen, but I feel that since I wrote answers both to this one and the duplicate, I shouldn't be hasty to use my powers here.

In any case, the two questions (the question, and the voted duplicate) are different in their presentation and therefore the answers are somewhat different in their essence. Sufficient, I feel, for not having them as duplicates.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

[Reopened]

This question was closed because it is said to be a duplicate of this question.

This is absurd. The content of the newly closed question is:

Why the word "error" was chosen as the name of the function $$ x\mapsto\operatorname{erf}(x)=\frac 2{\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{-\infty}^x e^{-t^2}\,dt\text{ ?} \tag 1 $$

The content of the earlier question, of which that was alleged to be a duplicate, is:

Why is it normalized in that way, rather than using the function $$ x\mapsto \frac 1 2 + \operatorname{erf}\left(\frac x {\sqrt 2} \right) = \frac 1 {\sqrt{2\pi}} \int_{-\infty}^x e^{-t^2/2}\,dt, $$ which arises naturally in the theory of probability?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You have a point there and I voted to reopen, while dupe closure seems not "absurd" either. However, could you please try to internalize that one cannot notify users that voted to close, so that you writing several near-identical comments is completely pointless and pure noise. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 30 '15 at 22:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid : Are you saying nothing appears in their notifications? If so, I'd say that's a bug. But I also wonder how you would know that. ${}\qquad{}$ $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Apr 30 '15 at 22:21
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, this is what I am saying. I know because I read the documentation of the feature (and I assume the documentation is in-line with the behavior on the site). Here the relevant bit (my emphasis), it is even made explicit there (not just inferable as it is not mentioned as possible): "For questions: The moderator who closed the question. Users who have closed or reopened a question without a binding close vote (i.e. without a gold tag badge or a moderator vote) cannot be notified." $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 30 '15 at 22:27
  • $\begingroup$ I have no idea what a "gold tag badge" is and I can only surmise what the term "moderator vote" means. How to tell whether a question has been closed without those things is something I've never given a second's thought to. $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Apr 30 '15 at 22:38
  • $\begingroup$ As a rule you can assume it was closed without this and you cannot notify. You can notify only a closer marked with a diamond (mod) or a yellow circle (gold badge in tag on question, ie, 1000 score in 200 non CW answer). The point is these can close a question alone (binding vote, one vote suffices). In this case it makes some sense to allow to notify this one user. However, it is not desirable that numerous users are notified especially not via numerous comments (as you tried), which is a rational behind the design. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 30 '15 at 22:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid : Why is it undesirable? To me responsibility appears desirable. ${}\qquad{}$ $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Apr 30 '15 at 23:52
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelHardy You are right. I erred in voting to close here. $\endgroup$ – Potato Apr 30 '15 at 23:54
  • $\begingroup$ Because it adds too much noise. Anyway, this was not really my point. The point is it does not work, and it is by design it does not work. (I will not recommend you file a feature-request if you want it changed as I am pretty sure it was filed already frequently.) $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 30 '15 at 23:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid : What makes you think it was filed frequently? And is that really a reason not to request it again? One might think that if the number of people requesting something is large, that in itself might be a cogent reason to think it should be done. $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Apr 30 '15 at 23:59
  • $\begingroup$ It is just an educated guess. See this and that and third for related but not identical ideas. Yet, do as you please. And, I just said "I will not recommend" not "I will recommend not." (Abstractly, upvoting existing requests is common, not reposting.) $\endgroup$ – quid May 1 '15 at 0:14
3
$\begingroup$

Re-opened.

This question is about a chapter epigraph in Wilfred Hodges, A Shorter Model Theory. Please reopen it. It has been closed for being off topic.

That claim is false, as the text under the musical notation shows. Hodges states that the epigraph is intended as a heuristic illustration("with allowances for artistry") of an important concept, "an indiscernible sequence", theorems about which are central to the chapter.

The question asking about the epigraph is a question about indiscernible sequences, and is on topic.

Further, closing the question is unfair to the asker. It shows genuine research effort, highlighting a non-obvious point in an advanced textbook. I had not previously noticed that this epigraph needs more attention to understand it than other chapter headings of the book. The answer I wrote is certainly not definitive, but the question has motivated me to return to the book and I have a better understanding of the chapter as a result. To that extent the question is helpful to other readers of the book. It is really of much higher quality than most of what is asked on this site!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, Martin. $\endgroup$ – HTFB Jun 16 '15 at 8:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As is usual with this kind of request, editing this kind of information into the question would make things easier for everyone. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jun 16 '15 at 19:44
3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

Please vote for undelete the following question: Projective dimension of all principal ideals is finite. Is R an integral domain?. This is not trivial, has an upvoted answer, and moreover it's linked to this question: If $R$ is a noetherian local ring, then every 2-generated ideal has finite projective dimension iff $R$ is a UFD

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please I would like to request to remove the "put on hold" of: If a n-manifold exists, then is it the boundary of an existing (n+1)-manifold? [on hold]

I have rewritten the question to clarify it. I have read carefully the comments and simplified it. Indeed it is already answered, and the user that answered understood what I wanted to express, and I already accepted the answer. So if possible I would appreciate very much if could be removed the on-hold with the changes I did. If still the new formatting of the question is unclear please let me know, sometimes it is hard to express things for a non native English speaker :) Thanks in advance!

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, re-deleted, undeleted, reopened

This question from 2012 (!) was recently closed (and deleted) with the explanation, "Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it." I guess that those who voted to close it didn't notice that the user who posted it had not only included his thoughts on the problem and any attempts he made to solve it – he had actually posted a solution to the problem, based on some hints he was given. This kind of outcome should be celebrated, not closed and deleted over three years after the fact. Please consider voting to undelete.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The message does say "Please improve the question". The question is, indeed, not any good right now: bad grammar and spelling, not even a question, and, yes, no context. If I went through the question sheet on integrals my students have and asked and answered each and every single one of them with no explanation or motivation, would that be a good thing for the site? I don't think so. But if the question included some motivation, explanation about problems encountered and so on, now maybe that would be interesting... $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Feb 4 '16 at 10:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The reason it says "please improve the question" is that we don't want people using the site to get their work done for them without their putting in any of their own effort. OP has manifestly put considerable effort into answering the question, so the reason – the reason behind the reason, if you will – does not apply. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Feb 4 '16 at 10:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Context is also required to make the question useful for future visitors. I hope that we can agree that a question without context is not (at least less) useful for future visitors? What I would like to understand is: if use to future visitors is not a concern... Then what's the point of keeping the question? OP got their answer. And if it is a concern, then the question clearly doesn't meet standards relative to context (which directly impacts its use for future visitors) and keeping it 1/ sends a bad signal ("it's okay to post subpar questions") and 2/ dilutes the good content of the site. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Feb 4 '16 at 11:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (Due to a glitch my earlier comment didn't get posted apparently, but I also wanted to make the point that the age of the question is completely irrelevant. This ties into my previous point: OP got their answer 3 years ago. Now the only possible reason to keep this Q&A is for future visitors, and the age of the question has no impact whatsoever on that.) $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Feb 4 '16 at 11:16
  • $\begingroup$ I voted to undelete it. I think Gerry has a point here. I will refrain from voting again, if the disagreement continues, because I don't think that's right. Nevertheless, the question does not look like your average HW question. It probably was a HW question, and we can all surely see that there should be solutions.But explicit examples are apparently not easy to come up with. None of the close-voters made suggestions to the OP what to try. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Feb 4 '16 at 16:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I have edited the post, so that the information that OP's attempt is posted as an answer is more visible. (I suppose this can be a factor if somebody sees the question and deliberates whether the question should be deleted or should stay.) I was tempted to user first person (and simply copy the beginning of the answer), but since we already had some disagreement about this in the past, I chose to use more neutral language. If there are some other improvements which can be made, go ahead and edit the question further. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Feb 4 '16 at 16:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You (everyone) know, my question wasn't rhetorical. I'm genuinely interested: why do you (everyone) want to keep this question? For what purpose? (FWIW, I don't think the added sentence makes the question better... @Jyrki says explicit examples are not easy to come by: why not include that information instead? Maybe showing that naive guesses don't work. This would show to everyone that the question is actually interesting, and not another iteration on "solve this system for me".) $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Feb 4 '16 at 16:38
  • $\begingroup$ Four days later, and nobody has been able to answer my question. So I'm voting to delete again. Since a moderator undeleted the question when there was only one undelete vote, I think it's fair that only two users (plus me who had already voted) are enough to re-delete the question :) $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Feb 8 '16 at 8:56
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I vehemently disagree with your first comment. The reason it says "please improve the question" is so that we then have better (written) questions on the site, not to make an OP jump through hoops to earn the privilege to get an answer. $\endgroup$ – quid Feb 8 '16 at 12:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I removed the "meta" content from the post, and cast the last vote to reopen. $\endgroup$ – quid Feb 8 '16 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ I think the reason we need to require context before questions are answered is because, after someone gets an answer, there is much less incentive to edit the question. In this case, the OP has been inactive since 2013, so asking for them to edit the question seems futile. We can and should look for more quality in questions than "here is a seemingly arbitrary list of requirements, can you cook up a function that meets them". $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Feb 9 '16 at 15:22
3
$\begingroup$

Reopened and dupe-closed (with different target)

The question is closed as a duplicate of a question that is not at all a good target.

Show that the group $G$ is abelian if $G/Z(G)$ is cyclic

I would like it to be reopened. It then could be closed as a duplicated of the many better targets (see comment there) or also treated as a "proof verification" (but I think just closing it again would make sense).

(The problem is that the target literally asks something very different, commutator instead of center, and only then proceeds to give a proof as if the commutator where the center. What's worse the answer picks up the literal version of the question, so one cannot even edit the target to improve it.)

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted,

I would like to request this question be undeleted.

Shortly after I wrote an answer, the asker commented on the answer, and then deleted the question without explanation. I voted to undelete and also flagged the question, and then a moderator (Jyrki Lahtonen) undeleted the question and explained to the asker why it is rude to delete an answered question. But then the asker deleted the question again without explanation, and then asked a follow-up question separately.

If there is a duplicate question somewhere, then I am fine with closing the question as a duplicate (rather than deleting it), but I was unable to find a duplicate.

Also, if I have handled this situation poorly (e.g. answering a question instead of giving hints, or insisting on undeleting a question), please let me know and I will try to correct my behavior.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Very odd situation here. OP tried very hard to bury the question on m.se, deleting it twice, then when that didn't work vandalizing it twice, and was sternly rebuked by a moderator. And then a moderator went ahead and deleted it. What's going on? $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Nov 4 '17 at 22:09
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson the question was not deleted by a moderator. It was auto deleted by the community user. This happened because negatively scored posts of deleted users are deleted. Arguably, it is not a good idea to delete negatively scored questions that have an positively received answer in this way. If you want this changed you may consider to upvote this feature request. // I undeleted again; but I am not sure if autodel will delete yet again, let's see. $\endgroup$ – quid Nov 5 '17 at 1:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid, thanks for enlightening me, and thanks for undeleting. I have now upvoted the feature request, but I note that that post goes back four years, with no activity on it for nearly two years now. Does that mean no one higher up has ever looked at it? $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Nov 5 '17 at 2:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I am quite sure that somebody looked at it but they decided not to do it (at this point). That is, it is not inertia or neglect but an active decision. The reason I am quite sure is that there was some change related to this more recently. The behavior was changed for metas (per site and the main one) and they added a mod-tool to track such posts more easily. Then it ought to have been trivial, and likely even more simple, to change it also on mains. $\endgroup$ – quid Nov 5 '17 at 12:32
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks again, @quid. I'd rather that when people make active decisions they also make them in public, with their justification. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Nov 5 '17 at 21:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I agree that sometimes the communication related to feature request could be more active. The following thread that was started some time ago helps a bit meta.stackexchange.com/questions/291031 $\endgroup$ – quid Nov 5 '17 at 22:03
3
$\begingroup$

Reopened.

Please reopen Changing the values of a function $f:[a,b] \to \mathbb R$ of bounded variation for countably infinitely many points not a dense subset of $[a,b]$

It was closed as a duplicate of Changing the values of an integrable function $f:[a,b] \to \mathbb R$ countably infinitely many points not a dense subset of $[a,b]$, but voters apparently missed the distinction that the original question is about bounded variation while the alleged duplicate is about integrability.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Agreed on the distinction. Remains the lack of personal input. $\endgroup$ – Did Aug 22 '15 at 10:58
  • $\begingroup$ It is reopened now. Should it be closed again, this time for lack of context, @Did? (There is at least some context - the OP says what happens for finitely many points.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Aug 23 '15 at 11:42
3
$\begingroup$

Closed, Reopened, Closed, Deleted, Undeleted, Deleted, Undeleted, Deleted, Undeleted, Deleted

I would like my question to be undeleted and reopened: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1353475/nice-combinatorics-puzzle

My question was initially closed for missing context. After I provided the requested context, it was reopened. Then it was closed for the second time, now for being off-topic. Apparently some members of the community are of the opinion that mathematical puzzles have no place at this site. Yet there are countless examples of well-received puzzles at this site that prove otherwise.

========================================================================

Update, september 2018. After three years I return to this website, only to see that my question has not been reopened or undeleted (in contrast to many others). Strange. If I click on the link, I am lead to my old question. In the column on the right I see a whole list of similar puzzle-type of questions which have been approved and awarded points. Bizarre.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You might be interested in this. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Aug 2 '15 at 7:52
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I voted to undelete, for two reasons: a) A comment under the question (which received $4$ upvotes and thus played a significant role in the discussion) says: "We're here to help people, and you don't need help with this." I disagree; in fact it's quite normal for questions to be posted for reasons other than needing help, and most such questions are not closed or deleted. $\endgroup$ – joriki Aug 13 '15 at 11:46
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ b) The partial answer given by Emisor demonstrates that thinking about prime factorizations is required to solve the puzzle. This is not "elementary, using only every day ideas and notions" (as described in the question Najib linked to above). There are many more trivial questions about divisibility and prime factorizations, and they're generally considered mathematical and not closed or deleted. $\endgroup$ – joriki Aug 13 '15 at 11:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ FWIW I cast a vote to undelete this. Memories. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 23 '18 at 5:24
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened.

Polynomial equations of degree larger than 4 was put on hold as "unclear". OP has now edited the question so that it is clear (the introductory part is still a little rough, but the boldface part is quite clear, I think). Please consider voting to reopen.

[It's quite possible that the question is a duplicate of some earlier question, although no one has nominated a candidate. In any event, there is the option to reopen, then close as a duplicate, if warranted.]

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Hi I want to reopen my question, can you give me a tip on how I can improve it so it will qualify for this site.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Everything up the "Question" part is fine. It talks about some algorithm about factoring. However, the last few lines in the question section is problematic. It seems you are asking how to implement a function for that. If that is indeed the case, then it is about programming and not math, that will be off-topic for math.SE. If that is not the case, then you haven't told us the real "math" question. $\endgroup$ – achille hui Jan 22 '16 at 16:13
  • $\begingroup$ @achillehui Tnx, I edited the question to make it more clear. Please take a look in it now. $\endgroup$ – Ilya Gazman Jan 23 '16 at 10:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is better now, you get at least one reopen vote from me. $\endgroup$ – achille hui Jan 23 '16 at 11:43
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I think If $f:[0,\infty)\to [0,\infty)$ and $f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)$ then prove that $f(x)=ax$ should be reopened. It was closed as duplicate of a question about Cauchy's functional equation, but it is subtly different, and in my opinion both interesting and a little surprising. (No assumption on regularity, but instead demanding $f$ mapping positive reals to positive reals.)

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It took 40 minutes to reopen this question... Maybe next time wait a few hours for the review queue to do its thing before posting here? :) $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Feb 15 '16 at 15:26
  • $\begingroup$ @NajibIdrissi It wouldn't have hit the review queue. (The edit was made before the final vote to close.) $\endgroup$ – mrf Feb 15 '16 at 15:30
  • $\begingroup$ Your reopen vote put it in the review queue: math.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/577459 and three of the votes to reopen came from there... Anyway, what's done is done. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Feb 15 '16 at 15:32
  • $\begingroup$ Additionally, incorrect close votes were also discussed in chat. So users of that chatroom might have noticed it as well. (In fact, I planned to post reopen request there if the question is not reopened from the review.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Feb 15 '16 at 15:42
  • $\begingroup$ But I should also say that I am glad that the question was reopened. (Just in case the comments sounded too negative.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Feb 16 '16 at 6:55
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

I'd like to see Volume enclosed by $(x^2+y^2+z^2)^2=x$ undeleted.

The question was deleted very soon after a comment by myself and a reasonable answer by Christian Blatter - though, that answer did offer a solution using an alternative approach. It certainly appears to be a frustrating case where an experienced user creates a temporary account to ask a question only to delete it as soon as they feel they understand it. The comments lead me to think that they don't actually understand it and I'd like to add an answer illustrating the correct approach.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielFischer Thank you! $\endgroup$ – Mark McClure May 28 '16 at 23:23
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

A high school sophomore asked, in initially a sophomoric way, about proving the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra (FTA):

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1848874/the-proof-that-the-number-of-zeroes-of-a-polynomial-the-degree-of-the-polynomial

After receiving the usual feedback (downvotes, closure), the OP edited the Question into fair shape. After an exchange of Comments I further tweaked the wording to focus on aspects of stating and proving the FTA accessible at a high school level. I think this is a topic which would add valuable content to Math.SE, since the FTA is often introduced without proof to high school students. This must seem puzzling to those who pause to think why.

Since the Question has now completed its turn in the Reopen Review Queue, I'm appealing to Meta Readers for a couple of additional reopen votes.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

This question on Lagrange multipliers was closed for being "unclear."

The actual question seems clear to me: When solving the system of equations for $\lambda$ in the typical Lagrange multiplier calculation, is it OK to reduce the equations to make solving easier? I admit it would be nice if the OP would say something about why they would think that might not be OK, but I still don't really see what's unclear.

There are currently 3 votes to reopen (one of them mine), and it seems to have gone through the review queue fully.

My apologies if I misunderstand "the natural course" of reopening, but I assume that's more or less done, having completed the review queue, albeit somewhat recently.

Edit: Thanks to quid, I do see the logic of the original closure; no qualms there.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You understood it right (the meta process I mean). On the question, well, yes I agree it is a borderline but seems about alright now (I cast a vote). But in fairness it was math.stackexchange.com/revisions/1862725/1 that was closed, which is both less clear and less polished than the current one. Indeed, it seems the closure induced an edit by OP that did improve the question. The process works as intended. $\endgroup$ – quid Jul 18 '16 at 22:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid That's a good point -- I looked over the revision history, thinking "Oh, one line, it was basically a formality on their part." But I didn't consider the original version in isolation, it was less clear than I'd thought. I do understand the closure now. $\endgroup$ – pjs36 Jul 18 '16 at 22:20
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

Please vote to undelete How to solve this equations in modular arithmetic? $6247x \equiv 1139 \pmod{9461}$

The question might have come from http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~andrejb/engg2440/hw/16H03.pdf which specifically says that any use of online material must be properly cited and credited. Deleting the question after receiving an answer seems in bad taste.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

The question How find the function if such $f(P(x)+Q(f(y))+Q(y)P(f(x)))=Q(y)+P(f(x))+P(x)Q(f(y))$ got recently deleted, despite having a score of 3 upvotes and no downvotes, and an answer with the same score. That answer was written by me, and this deletion made me lose 55 points in a single blow. While I understand the necessity of cleaning the site up, I strongly question this specific deletion decision; I cannot find any fault with the question. Could the community take a look at it and voice its opinion, please? Thank you.

(Given that we are talking about a deleted post, only users with at least 10000 reputation points will be able to see it, the others will be directed towards the standard "not found" page.)

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Autodeleted

I would like to ask whether you would consider reopening Show that the set $\{(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)|x_1x_2x_3x_4=0\}$ a linear subspace of $\mathbb{R}^4$?

At the moment it is closed with the close reason missing context. The OP reacted in comments to some hints. After that I have edited his attempts into the post. (It would have been better if the OP edited the post, but perhaps they will do so next time.) After the edits, I do not think that missing context is still a valid reason. (I would have no problem with closing the question as a duplicate. The closest I was able to find was this one.)

I do not claim that it is great question. But reopening would help reinforce the message to the OP (and other new users): "Editing your posts to include what you were able to do after some hints in comments might lead to reopening."

The question already went through reopen review queue. And I have also suggested reopening this question in chat before asking here, but without success.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I propose reopening this question. It's basically a request for references, so I don't think the "show your work" objection applies.

$\endgroup$

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