43
$\begingroup$

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old thread (as of now) has over $200$ answers, and it is really hard to scroll through the mass of old and/or possibly outdated answers--voting is a mess, too.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.

228 Answers 228

0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I propose that this question be reopened: Why is the fact that a quotient group is a group relevant? This question was closed as being a duplicate of the question Why the term and the concept of quotient group? However, the questions are completely different, as can be seen by the huge differences in the types of answers. One question asks "why is the idea of a quotient group like division?", while the other asks "why do I care that a quotient group is a group?"...

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened, [Re-closed], Deleted (https://math.stackexchange.com/posts/2538958/revisions)

I propose that this question be reopened. I understand that there are already four votes to reopen. But since the question is about the free product of groups, I expect that many users will skip it, even some group theorists. Thus the number of users who are likely to see and evaluate it will probably be small reducing the likelihood of getting a fifth vote to reopen.

The question asks how to apply a Theorem, which the OP states explicitly, to prove a corollary, which is also stated explicitly. The proof of the corollary involves a simple substitution. It is the kind of thing that one may see quickly or completely miss. Thus there is little additional "context" which the OP could provide.

On the other hand, one can assume that since the OP is working in free products, he or she, will be able to understand the easy solution. So, additional context is not needed for that purpose.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The context could easily include the context where the OP encountered the problem (i.e. its source), the background and interest of the theorem, or why the OP is interested in proving the corollary in the first place. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Dec 1 '17 at 23:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CarlMummert I agree, but how would it help in this case? And it would only serve to make a short question longer. $\endgroup$ – Stephen Meskin Dec 2 '17 at 3:46
  • $\begingroup$ !Stephen Meskin: This has been discussed at length, but newer users may not know just how much length the discussion has taken. For example, see math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9201/630 and links from there. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Dec 2 '17 at 14:26
  • $\begingroup$ @CarlMummert That is an interesting string. I could only read a small fraction of it at this time. From what I read,, it seems like there are alternative views. The comment that got to me was by Alexander Gruber of Apr 26 '13. Not withstanding the pros and cons of the issue, I cannot tell whether a conclusion was reached and, if so where to find a list of such conclusions. Moreover, I think the statement describing the reason for closure can be misinterpreted. I have mentioned these issues in another post. See math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/27449/465208 But we are getting off topic. $\endgroup$ – Stephen Meskin Dec 2 '17 at 17:49
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ !Stephen Meskin: the nature of this site is that a clear conclusion is rarely reached - the number of enforceable policies is extremely small. There are some people who are OK with PSQ posts, but many people are not. Whether a particular PSQ post is closed often depends on who looks at it. But in general the way for someone to avoid the closure like this one is just to write a more self-contained post, with some background, motivation, and sourcing. In this case the OP had the theorem and corollary already stated but did not say where they were from. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Dec 2 '17 at 18:00
  • $\begingroup$ @CarlMummert I'm beginning to discern the nature of this site. It will take a while. I have edited the post in question with a reference to a prior post on a closely related question which except for a few unrelated personal statements is of the same format and level, but doesn't seem to have received even one downvote. or flag. Should we not have a bit of consistency? $\endgroup$ – Stephen Meskin Dec 2 '17 at 18:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Carl, what is the function of the exclamation mark you are putting in front of Stephen's name? $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Dec 2 '17 at 22:26
  • $\begingroup$ @CarlMummert My edit didn't seem to take. The reference was math.stackexchange.com/q/346802/465208 I think this reference also gave some context to the question since the referenced question gave the source of the the Theorem. $\endgroup$ – Stephen Meskin Dec 2 '17 at 22:57
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I would like to ask you to consider reopening this question: How to prove this interesting inequality: $\frac{5x+3y+z}{5z+3y+x}+\frac{5y+3z+x}{5x+3z+y}+\frac{5z+3x+y}{5y+3x+z}\ge 3$?

Originally, it was in rather bad shape, it contained basically just the problem statement and a link to a picture - which is why it was closed and deleted. With the help of other users the OP improved the question (MathJax, source of the problem). So I think it looks much better now than it did originally. And the question was already undeleted.

I will add that the question already went through reopen review queue once - it was before the edits. Since the edits were made while the question was deleted, I assume those edits will not push it into reopen review queue.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened and then merged with an older question (revisions/timeline)

I think this question should be reopened: Polynomial equation $f(x)f(2x^2)=f(2x^3+x)$

For starters, the question was open for 2 years and has only just been closed. Secondly, this question, which is not lacking context or other details, was closed as a duplicate of the above. So noone can answer the good question because it has been closed as a duplicate of a (now-closed!) bad question.

This is a silly state of affairs and I think it should be fixed.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It seems okay to undelete the second one and then merge the two. $\endgroup$ – user99914 Jan 24 '18 at 14:28
  • $\begingroup$ @John I have no idea how to do that! (I am guessing its a 20k+ privilege though!) $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jan 24 '18 at 14:33
  • $\begingroup$ Actually only mods can do that. $\endgroup$ – user99914 Jan 24 '18 at 14:34
  • $\begingroup$ To add to John Ma's comment - 20k+ users can vote to undelete, moderators can merge. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 24 '18 at 14:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JohnMa I am not sure whether the merging is still needed, since the linked question has been reopened. In any case, I have edited the deleted one - so that the notation is the same and they can be merged: Solve $f(x)f(2x^2) = f(2x^3+x)$ (Of course, the edit can be reverted if they are not going to be merged.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 24 '18 at 14:37
  • $\begingroup$ And there is a third copy posted today - which is (quite deservedly) getting close votes and downvotes: Solve $P(x)*P(2x^2) = P(2x^3+1)$ I know this is a duplicate question but I cannot find the original. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 24 '18 at 14:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My feeling is that merging give the question a little bit more protection from closure deletion, since the deleted one provides more contexts. @martinsleziak $\endgroup$ – user99914 Jan 24 '18 at 14:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would suggests to continue this in chat. Mainly to avoid leaving too many comments under this post. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 24 '18 at 14:52
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

This question has been inexplicably classified as "unclear what you're asking".

Convexity of the natural parameter space of an exponential family of probability distributions is a standard result introduced in standard theory-of-statistics courses.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I am requesting that this question be reopened: Why is group theory axiomatized with operations?

I believe that the reason for closure is tied up in the first comment, which basically says "I have never seen this definition of a group before, therefore I do not know what you are talking about!". But...this definition is used (as I point out in the comments).

(I have also edited the question, as discussed in the comments below.)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That's a misrepresentation. More to the point, there is also a comment 'You said "bla bla bla", but what are the axioms that you're not understanding?' Indeed, OP should include (an example of) the definition they ask about. Further, you should link to the question not to your answer. $\endgroup$ – quid Feb 18 '18 at 12:04
  • $\begingroup$ @quid Sorry about the link - I had just copied-and-pasted the URL I was at. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Feb 18 '18 at 21:40
  • $\begingroup$ @quid w.r.t. the "blah blah blah" comment, I see your point. I ignored this comment as the "blah blah blah" axioms are associativity, identity and inverses - that is, the 3 axioms common to both definitions. However, I still think the question should be reopened. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Feb 18 '18 at 21:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The question is needlessly unclear. Why cannot OP (or anybody for that matter, say, you) include the axioms, or at least that closure axiom in the question? It's a poorly phrased question with a ???? in it, and the cdot is not formatted correctly. First fix the question, then ask for reopening. There is no justification to insinuate it was closed because it was not understood. There is enough reason to close it while it is understood because it is poorly explained and thus needlessly hard to understand. $\endgroup$ – quid Feb 18 '18 at 21:51
  • $\begingroup$ I had just logged on to delete my second comment, above, before you saw it, and with the intention of editing the question in the morning :-) I will edit the question in the morning... $\endgroup$ – user1729 Feb 18 '18 at 21:59
  • $\begingroup$ That's great. I am looking forward to the edit. $\endgroup$ – quid Feb 18 '18 at 22:09
  • $\begingroup$ @quid I've edited it now. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Feb 19 '18 at 9:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry for the delay, I was not online. I cast the last vote. $\endgroup$ – quid Feb 19 '18 at 18:11
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

The question How to integrate this polynomial? received an answer (from an experienced user) in nine minutes after creation. However, OP self-deleted his question one minute after that. According to one of our site mods, this is an "abusive behaviour". Other users don't have enough time to vote on this answer. Therefore, I propose to undelete this question.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I want my question re-opened. It was put on hold with the following message

"This question is missing context or other details: 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. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – amWhy, Cesareo, José Carlos Santos, Shailesh, Alex Francisco

The question is
How to calculate the distance travelled by a car in an elliptical track after a certain time given its angular speed?

I've edited the question adding more context & more details regarding what I want & what i tried by myself.

Since I am a new user, I may not know how much information to give without making it verbose. So please leave a comment if any other action is required from my side & reopen the question

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ My understanding is that by editing your question you automatically placed it in the "review queue", meaning there was no need to post a request to this discussion. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jun 24 '18 at 6:35
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson oh I was not aware of that. For future reference, in what circumstance should I post here for reopening. $\endgroup$ – KharoBangdo Jun 24 '18 at 7:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Quoting from the introduction to this thread: "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.)" $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jun 24 '18 at 10:17
0
$\begingroup$

Deleted

I want to reopen this inequality question. Although OP did not show any effort to solve the question, majority of the MSE users considers the question to be interesting and some of them will be able to give a good answer to it.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You seem to have marked the requesting post Reopened at the same time you wrote this. In fact the linked Question is closed since May 25 (this year), and the author of that has been missing in action since. I'm going to edit your request, since the post is not Reopened. Saying "majority of the MSE users considers the question to be interesting" sounds like an exaggeration. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jun 28 '18 at 17:01
  • $\begingroup$ So now can I repost it? BTW, it has 12 upvotes and 2 downvotes so 86% of MSE users finds it interesting. "Majority" is not exaggeration. $\endgroup$ – didgogns Jun 29 '18 at 10:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Sure, you can repost such a problem in a better context with a new Question (assuming it isn't a duplicate, I did not search). Getting more upvotes than downvotes means a majority of users who voted approved of the Question, but this is clearly not the same as a majority of MSE users. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jun 30 '18 at 3:57
0
$\begingroup$

I would like to request to undelete this answer. Since the deletion I improved it by attaching simple script demonstrating basic idea behind the said algorithm and I hope it is of some value now, it even received one upvote.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Unfortunately, it's not of any value in my opinion. The question is about how to achieve some performance bound. Your post does not address that at all. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Jul 8 '18 at 17:31
  • $\begingroup$ @user21820 From the question itseld: "However I can't find anything more than a brief overview of the algorithm itself, let alone a worked example. Could anyone provide a detailed explanation or example, or reference to where I can find one?" $\endgroup$ – minmax Jul 8 '18 at 17:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Look the question is obviously concerned with a certain algorithm that has a certain time complexity. Yours is nowhere near that, so it is not an answer to that question. In particular, yours is not the Pollard-Strassen algorithm. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Jul 9 '18 at 2:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Furthermore, it already had an answer 6 years ago that does actually address the question. So why insist on keeping your answer that doesn't? $\endgroup$ – user21820 Jul 9 '18 at 2:18
  • $\begingroup$ @user21820 Because not everyone has the book and it shows the idea behind the algorithm. I don't understand what harm does it cause to keep the answer visible. $\endgroup$ – minmax Jul 9 '18 at 8:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ After my three comments, you still apparently do not understand the meaning of "algorithm". Question asks about X. Your post talks about Y. And X ≠ Y. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Jul 9 '18 at 14:42
-1
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I think this question should be reopened. It was originally both unclear and lacking context, but it has been greatly expanded and the statement of the question is now clear and well-motivated (despite the fact that some of the motivating discussion is still a bit muddled).

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Reopened

This question was closed as "unclear what you're asking". I have fixed the terminology in the question so that it shouldn't be unclear anymore.

(It stalled in the reopen queue just one vote short. I'm reasonably surprised that so many voted to leave closed)

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I asked a question looking for a epsilon-delta proof for the Chain Rule of Limits, however the question was marked as a duplicate for a similar question but it does not provide the proof I was looking for. In fact someone had already mentioned before that it wasn't really a duplicate. I would like to get this question reopened. Is there an appeal or request I can make? Or can someone explain why?

The link to the question is below: How to Prove the Chain Rule for Limits Using a $\varepsilon-\delta$ Argument?

This is frustrating and now someone is downvoting!

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "I am asking for a simple epsilon-delta proof not a proof involving analysis" What does that even mean...? I guess I kinda understand the intent, but epsilon-delta proofs are part of analysis! $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Dec 19 '15 at 7:42
  • $\begingroup$ @NajibIdrissi I meant a proof that could be understood by someone who didn't take a analysis class yet. I'll change that! Can you help me is the question? $\endgroup$ – Red Dec 19 '15 at 7:45
  • $\begingroup$ @NajibIdrissi or explain why it is a duplicate? $\endgroup$ – Red Dec 19 '15 at 7:53
  • $\begingroup$ I'm a bit confused to be honest, you got an answer right? James S. Cook's answer looks fine to me. IMO the questions are duplicate of each other, they could be merged though to have both answers (the one with $\epsilon-\delta$ and the one with the sequential definition) at the same place. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Dec 19 '15 at 8:37
-1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

What was the point in deleting For which $k$ are there most partitions of $n$ into $k$ parts? ? Is the website really better without the mathematical content in the answer to that question, than with it?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What a weird Q&A. $P(n,k)$ isn't defined explicitly anywhere (you can guess from the title, or you can follow the OEIS link, but it's not defined in the question...) The first edit to the question was literally copied from your answer plus something that should have been a comment. Then the OP self-answered the question with something that should have been an edit, which was converted into an edit by a mod but comments were lost and the discussion doesn't make sense anymore. It's simply a mess, and I don't really see any mathematical content besides the OEIS links, TBH. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Apr 10 '15 at 7:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (In particular, your answer is a prime example of VLQ: “While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes.” The mathematical content in question is not even on the website.) $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Apr 10 '15 at 7:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd say you can tell (not "guess") from the title. Bad way to write a question, but still it's a reasonable question to ask, and as you acknowledge that there is mathematical content, I have to ask, again; is this site better off without mathematical content, than with it? Because I thought we were here to provide mathematical content. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 10 '15 at 7:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I might or might not have deleted this myself, I will however say that I find the thread quite confusing. To answer your comment by analogy: Somebody selling apples might well search for those that are somewhat foul and put them in the garbage. Somebody else might consider them still as edible and maybe leave them around, or perhaps try to sell them at a discount. It depends on ones priorities and what image one wants to convey. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 10 '15 at 10:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid, are you suggesting that my answer to that question was foul? $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 10 '15 at 12:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ However, the main point of the analogy was in fact not to evaluate the thread in an unfavorable way (as I said I might not even have deleted it myself) but rather to point out that the mere fact that the website is here to provide mathematical content does not imply that everything that is mathematical content needs to be preserved, just like somebody in the business of selling apples might also decide to put some apple to the garbage rather then try to sell it (while some other vendor of apples might have a different judgement on some specific apple). $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 10 '15 at 12:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid, I thought it was quite clear that the question is, given $n$, find $k$ that maximizes $P(n,k)$. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 10 '15 at 13:20
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Given later edits this seems indeed the intent. However, your answer starts (my emphasis). "The numbers are tabulated at " giving a link to $\max_k P(k,n)$ not the $k$s. You give this too. But the first link giving the numbers does in fact not give the numbers you now consider as asked about. I continue to think there is need for clarification. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 10 '15 at 13:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid, I wish someone had asked for clarification (or provided it) before voting to delete the question. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 10 '15 at 13:34
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ This could be a good way to proceed. Yet, if I am not mistaken, one can edit deleted posts. Hence in a similar spirit one might hope for clarification before (requests for) undeletion. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 10 '15 at 13:50
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I cleaned-up the question and cast the final vote to undelete. And then also one to reopen. I added the info what 'the numbers' are in your answer. If you do not like it just roll back, obviously. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 10 '15 at 23:21
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If closing a question as unclear isn't a request for clarification, I don't know what is. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Apr 11 '15 at 6:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well yes, it is a comment on your answer and I didn't @ping anyone. I am a bit confused, what method do you suggest that doesn't leave out almost everyone? And who better than the OP to provide clarification? $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Apr 11 '15 at 8:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Najib, let's review the bidding. The question was posed 8 March 2012. OP was last seen here 9 March 2012. The question was closed as unclear on 20 March 2015, three years after OP left the building. So, tell me again that it was a request for OP to provide clarification. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 11 '15 at 9:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am a bit confused, what method do you suggest that doesn't leave out almost everyone? (It seems you missed that part so I'm including it again) Then maybe we can realize asking a new, not completely garbled question is the best course of action. Maybe the answers to that new question will even be more than just a link to an outside website... $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Apr 11 '15 at 9:56
-1
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Request for reopening a reference-request question:

This question is on hold as opinion based. reference-request questions somehow can be seen as "based on opinions". I clarified what kind of book I want. It has good answers and can have more. (It has 2 reopen vote).
Thank you

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Reference requests are not necessarily based on opinions. Also you needlessly make it more opinion based than it has to be by asking for "best." Moreover, if the 'best' book were out of print since decades and hard to get access to and written in a language you do not understand maybe you would be more interested in a very slightly worse book that is in English and readily available. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 11 '16 at 17:22
  • $\begingroup$ yes thank you. I've edited the question and forgot to edit title; now I edit $\endgroup$ – user 1 Mar 11 '16 at 17:25
  • $\begingroup$ The question now has four votes to reopen, if someone would like to be the fifth. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Mar 14 '16 at 2:04
  • $\begingroup$ @T. Bongers. thank you. $\endgroup$ – user 1 Mar 14 '16 at 7:06
-1
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Can $P(\omega)$ be superatomic?

Are there any standards by which this is not a good question? There don't appear to be standard techniques in the course of whose application one can say specifically where one got stuck on this question.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "Are there any standards by which this is not a good question?" Please explain how the question complies with the last point in the default reference, titled "Give definitions," for the closing reason in question. $\endgroup$ – quid May 5 '16 at 15:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note my Comment on the Question at issue asking the OP about how the notation used is defined. The body text there does little more than repeat the title. $\endgroup$ – hardmath May 5 '16 at 15:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ As your Answer on the Question was accepted, I would say the OP endorsed your interpretation of the problem sufficiently to edit the Question and supply the clarification/definition of notation. Likely the OP got what they wanted and have less motivation than you for any reopening efforts. $\endgroup$ – hardmath May 5 '16 at 17:05
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @quid : The question originally had "set-theory" as a tag, so the definitions would be just those that are conventional in set theory. If "calculus" is a tag, one doesn't give a definition of $\displaystyle\int f(x)\,dx$ every time one mentions an integral. Failure to adhere to the points on the page on how to ask a good question can often result in a bad question, but that doesn't mean it always does. In cases where it doesn't, it doesn't, and in such cases one shouldn't treat such a failure to adhere as an offense. But I suspect some people $\text{feel }\ldots\qquad$ $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy May 5 '16 at 23:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\ldots\,$that they must zealously campaign against all such failures regardless of whether it is a case in which the result is a bad question, and that that is what is going on in this case. Indeed, someone down-voted my answer. I wonder why? That would be a bad-faith down-vote if it resulted from any expression of mine on this page or anywhere besides in the answer. $\qquad$ $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy May 5 '16 at 23:18
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The understandability of the main post should not depend on the tag. Besides, with or without that tag the question is, for me, unnecessarily hard to understand due to the lack of definitions. As pointed out, there was a comment asking for clarification. That you completely ignore that comment, could be seen as not in overly good faith too. $\endgroup$ – quid May 5 '16 at 23:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The question was edited to include context, by its poster initially and then some more by Martin. I cast the final vote to reopen. $\endgroup$ – quid May 6 '16 at 8:27
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid Probably a majority of questions include notation that is not defined in the question. If the notation is not familiar to the reader then they should ask for clarification, not use that as an excuse to close the question. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque May 6 '16 at 14:59
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque as could be evident from the comment thread above, there was a comment asking for clarification. Alas, initially it had no effect. Later more severe measures of community moderation had the desired effect. If anything this is one more instance showing the importance of using votes to close and down-votes to reinforce the message. $\endgroup$ – quid May 6 '16 at 15:11
-1
$\begingroup$

Reopened.

The question Is $X\simeq [0,1]$? should be reopen. To anybody who knows anything about Bing-style geometric topology, it's clear that the question is not a homework problem but an attempt to come up with a new characterization of the closed unit interval (up to a homeomorphism). The proposed characterization is similar to the standard one, which is discussed in Henno Brandsma's answer here but does not appear to follow from it.

$\endgroup$
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ I did not vote on the question and would not, but the critique made is exactly that the question does not give enough context. Your post here gives context. It would be more efficient to include the context on main, and to signal it here in a neutral way, rather than to make a somewhat dismissive post here. $\endgroup$ – quid Jul 19 '16 at 20:26
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The OP has not improved the post in the 2 days since it was asked, so it seems that they have little interest in having it re-opened. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Jul 20 '16 at 0:50
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid If people understood that, 90% of this thread wouldn't exist. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jul 20 '16 at 8:34
-1
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Can you provide me historical examples of pure mathematics becoming "useful"? has been put on hold, as "There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format." But in fact there are several excellent answers, including one with 94 net upvotes, and as for "too many possible answers", well, it is a big-list question, it's expected to have a lot of answers. Please have a look, and consider voting to reopen.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It's a poor fit for the format like most big-list questions. I voted to close again. Also the quality of several answers (though not all) is not so great, to say the least. $\endgroup$ – quid Feb 28 '17 at 0:06
  • $\begingroup$ @quid, so, just vote down the bad answers. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Mar 1 '17 at 11:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You seem to miss the point. The presence of numerous bad answers further illustrates that the question is a bad fit for the format. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 1 '17 at 12:47
  • $\begingroup$ @quid, so, what does the presence of numerous good answers illustrate? $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Mar 1 '17 at 22:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That it is conceivable that more focused questions along the same lines could be productively treated on this site. Unfortunately, the continued active presence of overly broad threads, such as this one, indirectly stifles the emergence of such more focused questions. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 1 '17 at 22:27
-1
$\begingroup$

Re-opened.

Value/Cost of numbers from average intervals

The reason for closing this was "This question is not about mathematics, within the scope defined in the help center."; there was nothing about missing context or details.

I posted this comment under the question: "I think this should be construed as 'How many points is it worth paying to get a particular number as one of the five?'."

For example, if you give up one point to fix one of the five numbers at $0.3,$ is the expected number of points you you will score more than $1$? If so, then the value of $0.3$ is more than $1.$

Clearly this is a mathematical question.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Why doesn't $\sin^2(x) = 1 - \cos^2(x)$?

This question was "put on hold as unclear what you're asking by". The question is clear. $$ \begin{align} & \text{One source says } \sin^2 x = \frac{1-\cos(2x)} 2, \\ \\ & \text{and another says } \sin^2 x = 1-\cos^2 x. \end{align} $$ The poster found these two results discrepant and wondered why. It only needed to be explained that both can be correct, and a few simple implications of that explained.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Self-deleted.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2401782/a-bounded-function-that-converges-to-0-does-it-have-a-finite-energy-norm

BEGIN QUOTE

A function $f(t)$ belongs to $L_\infty$ and its limit (as $t \to \infty$) is $0$. How do I show that such a function is in $L_2?$

END QUOTE

Superficially, this may look like a copied-and-pasted homework problem, but only very superficially. A homework problem would usually not ask students to prove something that is not true, so that seems to indicate that this question is the student's own work rather than something copied and pasted from an assignment.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It very well could still be homework. The problem could simply be mistaken. The student could have misinterpreted it. It could have been an "is this true?" and the student decided to try and tackle the "yes" answer. There could be more assumptions in the problem that the student didn't think relevant. There could be implicit assumptions in the problem that the student didn't conceive of. And all of these things could be present even if it isn't a homework problem. $\endgroup$ – Hurkyl Aug 22 '17 at 5:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Hurkyl : Indeed it could be homework and the problem could be mistaken. Note that I said "usually". And I said "copied and pasted". There's no policy against asking about homework here, and I didn't say this isn't homework; I said it does not appear to be a copied and pasted homework assignment. $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Aug 22 '17 at 6:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And I did not say you said it wasn't homework. You did, however, bring up the idea, argue for it, and suggest its truth. $\endgroup$ – Hurkyl Aug 22 '17 at 6:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Hurkyl : No --- I said it does not appear to be COPIED AND PASTED homework. In other words it contains the poster's own thoughts. $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Aug 22 '17 at 6:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Okay... but if that's the point you are trying to emphasize, I overlooked it because you make a distinction in a way that does not appear to have any relevance. Is a verbatim replication of a problem really significantly different than a flawed attempt to replicate it? $\endgroup$ – Hurkyl Aug 22 '17 at 6:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I note that the question has been deleted by the poster. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Aug 22 '17 at 7:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Hurkyl : The point would be that in this case the flaws would have been introduced by the poster, therefore showing that the poster must have thought about it. $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Aug 22 '17 at 18:08
-1
$\begingroup$

DELETED.

This question has a superficial resemblance to a homework problem that may have been copied and pasted without the poster's understanding the question. However, the resemblance can be seen to be only superficial when one considers the following:

  • Apparently the poster simply didn't know the binomial theorem. Or perhaps failed to recognize this as an instance of it.
  • The two posted answers simply explain the binomial theorem. That's not a case of doing the poster's homework for them.
  • (And here is what may be a more adventurous reason.) A question can be justified by the fact that a good answer can be written.

How can I get $\sum_{k=0}^n\binom{n}{k}(pe^t)^kq^{n-k}=(pe^t+q)^n$?

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Reopened, closed, deleted

Compute $ \lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\int_0^1\cdots\int_0^1 \max\{x_1,\ldots ,x_n\}\,dx_1\cdots dx_n. $

Initially this was phrased like a homework problem with no thoughts by the poster. It has been edited since then.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm voting to reopen, but the post here is completely unnecessary given how recent the post and closure are. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Sep 4 '17 at 0:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @user296602 I'll point out that this post was made after the reopen review was already completed, at least if I am reading the timestamps correctly. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Sep 4 '17 at 0:34
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I find the added material incomprehensible. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Sep 4 '17 at 5:58
  • $\begingroup$ I have voted to undelete this question. It is an interesting question with effort. $\endgroup$ – Jack Jan 15 '18 at 18:20
-1
$\begingroup$

Mod deleted.


https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2708226/given-five-points-on-a-face-determine-if-the-face-shape-is-closest-to-a-circl

I propose that this be re-opened so it can be re-closed with a proposal to migrate it to stats.stackexchange.com .


Moderator comment for the deletion : This is too similar to another question by the same user: How can I define closeness of these geometric shapes It is not very clear why this was not noticed/mentioned before posting this request.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ FYR: A similar question was re-asked here. $\endgroup$ – user99914 Apr 20 '18 at 17:06
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Please learn how to check your flag history. It is more than a bit astonishing that you do not know this. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 20 '18 at 18:39
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnMa : How would I have known of that other question? $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Apr 20 '18 at 21:22
  • $\begingroup$ For me, I just check the linked post on the right of the OP. In this situation there is only one. I clicked and I found that it was re-asked. $\endgroup$ – user99914 Apr 20 '18 at 21:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelHardy maybe by checking the questions that user had asked in the interim from their user profile? There was a great total of two such questions. What is difficult about this? $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 20 '18 at 21:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid : So each time you look at a question, you check to see whether the poster has asked a similar question before? When no one has said anything about that? And I find that that poster has asked 11 questions, not just two. You use the words "in the interim". What "interim" are you referring to? $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Apr 20 '18 at 23:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I had said it in a reply to your flag. Here again: " OP has asked a similar question on our site by now. It is not clear it's a good idea to disperse the discussion. " Note the "by now". The interim refers to the time between posting the question you are talking about and right now or right then in any case after this question. $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 20 '18 at 23:05
-1
$\begingroup$

undeleted, autodeleted

I nominate this definite integral problem for undeletion and reopening because OP has shown effort (by making $u$-substitution) in solving the problem and it contains a self-answer with a positive score.

The moment when some other user(s) upvoted an answer, it carries their recognition, so it's not entirely the property of the owner.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Actually it seems pointless to undelete an unclear question, that the question-er are not coming back to fix it. $\endgroup$ – user99914 Apr 20 '18 at 17:04
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnMa The question statement is clear (find the definite integral). The question asker's attempt in the question body is unclear, but that's the point of asking. Btw, the upvote on OP's self-answer is casted by somebody else. $\endgroup$ – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Apr 20 '18 at 20:45
  • $\begingroup$ The OP for that Question self-deleted their Answer, despite the upvote. I'm not urging re-deleting the Question, but certainly that mitigates the argument for reopening (based on an upvoted but self-deleted Answer). $\endgroup$ – hardmath Apr 20 '18 at 21:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GNUSupporter : The problem is it is not clear how the question-er fails to evaluate the integral. And because of that, it is not clear how your answer help solve their problem. Honestly I do not see why this post is worth keeping (of course you are welcome to improve the question to make that a better post). $\endgroup$ – user99914 Apr 20 '18 at 21:40
-1
$\begingroup$

Reopened, deleted by community user

The question is put on hold because the question looks too complicated and long - but now it has been reduced and improved.

This is related and needs to be re-opened: https://math.stackexchange.com/q/2846746/79069, please vote up/reopen!

Thank you!

$\endgroup$
-2
$\begingroup$

Reopened and reclosed and reopened again

I recommend that Assigning tables for Speed Networking session be reopened at this point. It seems to have been closed initially because the title included "need answer ASAP!!", about which Asaf commented such posts should be "on hold for at least 48 hours".

The Question otherwise seems on-topic and motivated by a practical concern for resolvable block designs.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The issue is that the practical concerns will not be taken into account, also as they are not mentioned, really. This was the first objection raised. It would be kind you also mentioned it. The one that is proposed highly voted, I doubt this is good in practice. $\endgroup$ – quid Jan 24 '15 at 17:44
  • $\begingroup$ @quid: I don't follow your complaint. We often use "off-topic" to exclude questions which lack context or motivation. Here a clear context is described, and a mathematically justified solution was given that meets all stated restrictions. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jan 24 '15 at 17:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My first complaint here is that you did not mention that the complaint was raised. But made it look it was only closed for some "ASAP." $\endgroup$ – quid Jan 24 '15 at 18:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The complaint on the questions on main is that the context is in fact not described in a clear way. This a pseudo-application as it is. $\endgroup$ – quid Jan 24 '15 at 18:08
  • $\begingroup$ @quid: You are in a better position than I to present this complaint. Other Readers will have to judge the stated context as clear or "pseudo-application" for themselves. I have at times helped non-mathematically inclined folks tasked with schedules of dinner parties or sports tournaments of a similar nature, and did not suspect the honesty of their requests. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jan 24 '15 at 18:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is what context means, if that helps to clear things up. The fact that a valid solution was posted is irrelevant in deciding whether to reopen a question or not. So is "honesty" of the question. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jan 24 '15 at 18:18
  • $\begingroup$ @NajibIdrissi: The fact that a valid solution was posted is relevant to the issue of whether "the practical concerns will not be taken into account", as quid put it. That was my reason for calling attention to it. Your dictum "This is what context means" does not connect me with your insight. Perhaps you and/or quid would be kind enough to explain it to me in chat? $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jan 24 '15 at 18:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, but you ought to mention at least its existence when you post this here, especially since you discussed concerns that were raised. Not doing this is at best impolite and at worst dishonest. (I did not question the honesty of the question; I wanted to get more details on the situation, or the information that it is an abstract question. I do not care if the person does organize anything or not. But if they do one might better propose something adapt to the situation.) $\endgroup$ – quid Jan 24 '15 at 18:30
  • $\begingroup$ While it seems you persistently ignore what I say, on "The fact that a valid solution was posted". I said here, first comment: "The one that is proposed highly voted, I doubt this is good in practice." The fact that somebody came up with some solution that works to the specification does not mean that the practical concern were taken into account. OP did not mention any, so they are to blame. But, still, they should be present. The outcome of that procedure seems way to "structured" to be good for the purpose; moreover it is quite static so participant will even notice this subjectively. $\endgroup$ – quid Jan 24 '15 at 19:02
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @hardmath As you can see, sending me an email on my work address on a Saturday night may not get you the speediest response. In fact I'd appreciate if you could not send me emails related to MSE, you can simply contact me here. Why did I post this link to "what is context"? quid and you seem to have differing notions of what context is (you say the question has clear context, quid voted to close as "no context"). So I posted the official definition as a reference. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jan 25 '15 at 8:26
-2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, reopened, closed as a duplicate

Request to undelete and reopen Suppose $a_n$ converges and $b_n$ divergent. What can you tell about $a_n+b_n$? on account of:


Edit: It has been pointed out in the comments that the question is a duplicate of an older question. The previous closure reason was off-topicness with which I didn't agree. I am now voting to close as a duplicate.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ To include the full story, we should mention that you answered the question, and the OP has been absent since the end of 2013. Also, the question was closed the day it was asked, so it seems inaccurate to refer to changing standards - it seems like a question that had sat closed for more than a year, and finally people got around to cleaning it up. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Mar 2 '15 at 12:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CarlMummert I don't see how that's relevant. Edit: And people can see I answered the question when they open the link. Yes, it was closed on the same day it was asked. But at the time that was the decision of a few users and not the stance of (most) the community as it is today. $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Mar 2 '15 at 12:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It's almost certainly a duplicate, and the question doesn't meet the quality standards of the site. It doesn't matter if it's been posted yesterday or twenty years ago. I find somewhat disingenuous the fact that you posted a link to a lengthy debate with no clear conclusion as if it supported your decision. Also (in case you don't know) deleted questions are still editable, so if you're willing to put in the effort of improving it, you can do it now, and then there won't be any question of whether it should be reopened or not. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Mar 2 '15 at 12:18
  • $\begingroup$ To Najib Idrissi: the question was already edited by Famous Blue Raincoat. But it is not normal practice on this site to significantly change a question - that is up to the OP. Which is why it is relevant (@Git Gud) that the OP has long departed this site. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Mar 2 '15 at 12:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Git Gud: if we don't know how the question can be made acceptable, short of deleting the text and rewriting it from scratch, I don't see a strong argument to undelete the question? $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Mar 2 '15 at 12:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CarlMummert Suppose a perfect question gets deleted. Since it's perfect, you can't improve it. Does that mean it should remain deleted? Just to make it clear, I'm not claiming the question is perfect. My point is that I don't know how to improve it and in my opinion as it presently is, it's perfectly acceptable. $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Mar 2 '15 at 12:29
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Git Gud: questions like that have been unacceptable for some time - that is why the "no context" closure reason (used on that question) was added in the first place! $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Mar 2 '15 at 12:34
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The third bullet point appears irrelevant. The first is at least of unclear relevance. I would omit them. I think the edit incorporating OP's comment was sufficient improvement. $\endgroup$ – Jonas Meyer Mar 2 '15 at 12:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NajibIdrissi I fail to see the relevance of you having taken thirty seconds to find a duplicate. $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Mar 2 '15 at 12:47
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Git Gud: I don't think the reputation is the issue - it's just a few points. I do think that, as a general principle, a request to re-open a deleted question by someone who answered the question comes across as less objective than a request by someone who has not previously interacted with a question. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Mar 2 '15 at 13:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @CarlMummert Point taken. I'm going to remark something though. I'm not in the habit of coming to this thread to check on things. When I do ask for something like this, it is exactly because I interacted with the thread, otherwise I'd be ignorant about it. $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Mar 2 '15 at 13:45
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ "The question I linked in my third point has 24 up votes vs 6 down votes. Interpret that as unclear conclusion if you wish.": Yes, the question has these votes. Votes cannot indicate "agree/disagree" on that... Votes up would be in agreement with what, exactly? It seems to me that the question tries to be fairly neutral. It even includes "one good reason to vote-to-close these questions". Have you looked at the comments and answers to that question, in particular the +17/-6 answer if you're so intent on having numeric values attributed to positions? It looks nuanced to me. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Mar 2 '15 at 16:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid Good to know about it, though. I had no idea. I don't pay much attention to my whether my answers get deleted or not because I thought I could just check by looking at the reputation. This is worrisome because I often go back to my answers for many reasons and this way I may end up losing valuable time because an answer may have gotten deleted and I had no idea about it. $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Mar 2 '15 at 19:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JonasMeyer The deletions of old posts that do not affect reputation also do not appear on that page. It includes deleted posts that were created in the last 60 days, not deleted in the last 60 days. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Mar 3 '15 at 15:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Wow, someone posted a link to my DESE query even though I don't recall advertising it. I'm feeling warm and fuzzy inside :) $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Mar 3 '15 at 20:34
-2
$\begingroup$

Deleted by author

I suggest reopening this question:

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1318701/are-all-numbers-interesting

The problem isn't worded the best way, but I think an answer can be given.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The question is lacking a definition of "nontrivial property". This essentially makes it meaningless. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jun 10 '15 at 14:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NajibIdrissi: The basic question about what makes a number (or anything) interesting I think can be addressed. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Jun 10 '15 at 14:16
-2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, Redeleted

This question from 2013 was recently (11h ago) deleted and I don't know why. It was closed as missing context in 2013, but there are no missing details and I gave an answer, I would like it to be undeleted.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Surely this is me but where are there any elements of context? The full text of the question reads: "I am not able to understand writing a context sensitive grammar for this language. Can anyone please help me out? $L = \{ a^p | p \text{ is a non-prime integer}\}$" $\endgroup$ – Did Jan 8 '16 at 12:16

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