# Requests for Reopen & Undeletion Votes, etc. (volume 01/2015 - 07/2018 ) [duplicate]

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thread (as of now) has over $$200$$ answers, and it is really hard to scroll through the mass of old and/or possibly outdated answers--voting is a mess, too.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

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.

• 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? $L = \{ a^p | p \text{ is a non-prime integer}\}$" – Did Jan 8 '16 at 12:16

I have a CW answer here that was recently deleted by a moderator. I think this was a lapse of judgement, and I'd like the answer either undeleted, or converted to a sequence of comments under the original question.

If you look at the OP's profile here, you'll see that he/she is only 18 years old and primarily a programmer. Ergo he/she is likely to find help regarding how to express oneself helpful, and this is what most of my answer addresses. Therefore, I think it kind of undermines the pedagogical goals of this site to be disallowing long comments such as this; in other words, I think it blocks our ability to help the OP in a major way.

The aforementioned answer also takes the liberty of mentioning a similar problem that some readers are likely to be interested in, and linking to one of the many solutions to this problem on the stack.exchange network. I think this usefully increases the interconnectedness of this site, and hence that these kinds of links should not be so readily deleted.

• It was flagged by several people as "not an answer", and I agree, it fundamentally doesn't address the question. To discuss the wording of the questions, comments are the appropriate means. – Daniel Fischer Mar 14 '16 at 15:35
• @DanielFischer, this is just avoiding the argument, namely that deleting these kinds of answers blocks our ability to help the OP in a major way. – goblin Mar 15 '16 at 1:04

Reopened

would changing the lower limit of a power series affect radius of convergence

This question has been edited since it first appeared. (This despite the fact that no edit history seems to appear; can someone explain how that happens?) It is a good question.

• I think this was already a good question before the further edits. I suspect lots of people insist on adhering strictly to the letter of some feebly thought-out guidelines and that's why they voted to close it. $\qquad$ – Michael Hardy Jun 1 '16 at 16:57
• "[C]an someone explain how that happens?" There is short period (five minutes at most) where no revisions are kept. (It can be shorter if another editor buds in or there are comments.) Other than that, as happened already sometime IIRC, you link to the answer not the question. (Presumably as you follow the link from you profile to your answer or something.) – quid Jun 1 '16 at 17:36
• Is "lower limit" a common term? – user99914 Jun 1 '16 at 20:14
• @JohnMa : Yes. $\qquad$ – Michael Hardy Jun 2 '16 at 4:00
• @quid : Thank you. I hadn't noticed that particular detail. $\qquad$ – Michael Hardy Jun 2 '16 at 4:02

Reopened and then closed as a duplicate.

I want this question to reopen it has $6$ upvotes and $1$ downvote

• Isn't that question duplicate of this one? (As suggested in comments. That question is also listed among related questions.) – Martin Sleziak Aug 15 '16 at 7:44

Request to undelete this answer to my question

The answer was self-deleted, but it is useful and an excellent answer to the question. I don't know why the user deleted it, but I'd like it undeleted so I can upvote / comment.

• Is there a particular reason why it took you a week to interact with the answer to you question? – quid Aug 19 '16 at 10:12
• Did you contact the answerer before posting this request? You know, rather than (possibly) twisting their arm... (The user's page mentions: "Last seen 14 mins ago", hence they are still visiting the site.) – Did Aug 19 '16 at 10:18
• Other than that I agree with @Did I can see reasons why they actually might want to keep it deleted. Though it is also not unlikely they were just annoyed over your non-reaction. – quid Aug 19 '16 at 10:21
• @quid I just didn't read through the answers in detail until now. I don't think it violates any protocol not to interact with answers for a week but I can see how it would be considered rude, so I'll avoid it in the future. I hadn't thought about it too much but I agree it's not the best practice. – 6005 Aug 19 '16 at 18:29
• @Did contacted, thanks. I wasn't sure whether pinging on a different answer a message about an unrelated answer would be considered OK. – 6005 Aug 19 '16 at 18:30
• Deleting answers which are good contributions to the site is discouraged, explicitly -- and though in this case it isn't an upvoted answer I'm still not sure why everyone disagrees with my request so much. Sometimes attitudes on mathSE completely baffle me. – 6005 Aug 19 '16 at 18:31
• Obviously there is no rule that you must interact with answers on your question within a given timeframe. However, if a user is regularly active on the site, like you were, and still does not get around to vote on the answers they got to a recently asked question than I find this odd. As said the main point why I would not vote to undelete this though is that it's not clear why it was deleted. Maybe they want it deleted for other reasons. It seems plausible to me. – quid Aug 19 '16 at 18:44

Undeleted, Reopened, Redeleted

I'd like to appeal the deletion of https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2424765/are-there-integer-valued-polynomials-with-at-least-one-irrational-coefficient which came up while I was doing close vote reviewing (https://math.stackexchange.com/review/close/888212).

Sure, it's not the most profound question on the site, but it's a reasonable thing for a beginning student to wonder about, it's clearly not a homework question, and the answer is not super obvious (orangeskid sketched a nice argument in the comments).

The question was originally closed as "unclear what you're asking" but this concern no longer applies since the question as been edited.

• And after the edit, what we have is a clear question, with zero personal input from the OP, right? – Did Oct 17 '17 at 19:11
• @Did Sure, but it seems clear to me that the question is motivated by simple curiosity, and I'm not sure what additional context (other than "I was thinking about polynomials and was wondering: ") you'd hope to see. – user7530 Oct 17 '17 at 19:31

Reopened, Reclosed

Can everything in maths be proved from first principles?

I disagree that the question "does not belong to this site", as claimed in a comment, and that it is too broad (the given reason for putting it on hold).

Moreover, I think this is a matter that people interested in logic may wish to consider, as it is significantly subtler than saying yes (by definition: mathematics is what we can prove from given axioms) or than saying no, as the posted answer suggests (because of the incompleteness theorem).

• For example, the question is not clear about whether it means "proved from first principles using ordinary natural language proofs" or "proved from first principles using formalized proofs" or "proved from first principles using formalized proofs that can actually be generated by an automated theorem verifier/proof assistant such as Isabelle or Coq". – Carl Mummert Oct 3 '15 at 21:04

Closed, Deleted, Undeleted, Deleted, Undeleted, Deleted,Re-re-undeleted, mod-deleted

This question was closed and then deleted. In the comments and the subsequent meta thread, some users said it would help if the question were more self-contained. The OP doesn't have sufficient rep to add images, so I included the relevant excerpts from their linked PDF.

Reason for the mod delete: Even the best version of the post is not good, containing an image of a formula instead of the formula. If anyone (OP or anybody else) wants to pursue this further, please, do so in a new thread, informed by what was discussed. To recall, formulas should be typeset using MathJax. Images could also be described verbally if there are issues with inclusion.

• For the record, the necessary rep to post images is 10 points. :-) – Did Feb 28 '18 at 8:53
• My point is that it requires a very limited investment in the site to reach this rep hence one can avoid feeling too sorry for users claiming they deliberately disregarded well established rules of the site because they did not have the necessary rep (which, irrespectively of the amount of rep necessary, is a strange reasoning in itself, if you think two minutes about it). – Did Feb 28 '18 at 8:59
• The argument you put forward is more than week as the second image you include could perfectly well be typeset. In that sense your edit is a poor one. – quid Feb 28 '18 at 23:36
• @Quasicoherent what about it? How does this justify you not typesetting the formula? If you have to resort to harping on a silly language-error, it just proves that your point is weAk. And OP could have typeset it from the very start on, only resorting to the pdf for the figure. But they did not. – quid Mar 1 '18 at 0:02
• @Quasicoherent The missing figure was/is not the only problem with the post. The argument that the only reason OP did not ask a good question was their inability to include a graphic does not hold any water. Reasons why formulas should be typeset were discussed over and over again around here. Further, do you think it was an informative title? If not, why not improve it? And the list could go on. I am rather hostile towards tinkering around with subpar posts. Either really improve them or leave them alone. (This is a a general statement, I do not want to target you specifically.) – quid Mar 1 '18 at 0:33
• @quid Where exactly did I make such an argument? I said "...some users said it would help if the question were more self-contained," which is undeniably true. I stated the edits I made to the post and why I made them, nothing more. I agree that a typeset formula is preferable to a picture, but adding the formula, typeset of not, was an improvement to the post. To call such an edit "poor" makes no sense to me. It seems that you're saying if I can't make an optimal edit, there is no point in making an incremental improvement. – Richard D. James Mar 1 '18 at 0:55
• Alright so what then is your argument? You did not give an explicit argument for reopening / undeleting so I assumed the implicit one. You also may want to notice other objections that were raised early on such as "there is no reason why you [referring to OP] cannot type and use mathjax to format model 2" In fact the cannot include image narrative originates more from those defending the question not those that were against it. Re the title, sorry I had not noticed that you had changed the title. Thus, I take back this point. – quid Mar 1 '18 at 18:38
• This objection was acknowledge by OP but ignored; it was also ignored by you. It is a strange thing to do, as it could have been taken into account easily. You may not have realized this but using images for material that can be typeset without major problem is frowned upon. This may be accepted at times but if it comes from somebody that pretends to fix a post then this is strange. – quid Mar 1 '18 at 18:46
• I did not delete the thread because of this. I deleted it because it was in various back-and-forth activities. Faced with this I have mostly two option: I can delete or lock it. Since even the best version should be further improved (see the meta thread above) locking is not a good option. The improving could just as well be done in a new thread, without all the baggage the thread already had accumulated. It is better to start a new thread if your goal is to have the question on the site without drama. In a way my deletion facilitates this. – quid Mar 2 '18 at 15:17
• @quid I meant the second image (with the text and formula) - I lost that word while editing. I interpreted your comment about "accumulated anger" differently than you meant it - sorry. I do agree that the deletion with leave to restart the thread is a decent middle ground, but I am very disappointed by how this has been handled by several users - the communication was poor, the editing was ridiculous (especially the vandalism), and the comment chains got downright toxic. I'm also disappointed by the same users engaging in repeated deletion votes; I had thought that was frowned upon. – user296602 Mar 2 '18 at 20:02
• Oh that version. I think I agree @user296602 this wasn't a good idea, but there was no insistence on it so that's done. On the latest cmnt. Yes. But in pointing out such things one can do it in different ways. Your first comment in all this also could have been more sensitive. To me the real problem is that by now there are a couple of users among whom there is a lot of tensions. Then many things become complicate. Maybe we should all try to be more charitable. I realize I am not always good at this myself. And if not this, then just keep a distance from those with whom one has issues. – quid Mar 2 '18 at 20:43
• Various users, including you here, are wasting my time trying too hard to save random question. This is misguided. Reask the question if you care about it, if not move on. (I did not read all your comments.) – quid Mar 8 '18 at 13:05
• Having now read all your comments some clarifications or a summary if you like: some mod-action on the thread in question was needed, it was even solicited explicitly by users via flags. In such a situation one has mostly two options: delete or lock on some version. If I lock on some version this suggest this version has my approval. However, I did not find any version good. Would I have found some version good, I might instead have locked the post on that version. – quid Mar 8 '18 at 16:37
• Your edit did improve the post. But in my opinion given the context it was not good enough. In retrospect I should have avoided the first comment on meta. I was however annoyed about the fact that a second meta-post was created about the same issue and also about how you broached the subject. Likely, you assumed it is the correct action to post here, but it is not when there is a full meta-thread about the question. In this case it is redundant and in a way "fanning the flames." – quid Mar 8 '18 at 16:48
• Now, you complain that something takes hours of your time. But it is your choice to invest this time. So, you made that edit, and it did not have the desired effect. You could have just moved on. But you did not. This is your right and your choice. But it is your choice. Finally, as you may have missed that, in the mean time OP of the original question grossly misbehaved, which now does not make me more sympathetic to this entire thing here. – quid Mar 8 '18 at 17:03

Undeleted

I feel that the following question should be undeleted and reopened:

Can a countably infinite torsion group exist in which the density of squares is double the density of non-squares?

It was closed because the question is, in a very precise, mathematical way, meaningless. However, naively the question makes sense. So I feel that my answer which explains why the question is meaningless and also explains how to get something more meaningful is worthwhile. At least, more meaningful than simply closing and deleting the question.

• And the most important factor in your reasoning to reopen the question is that you answered it and want the rep you earned answering a meaningless question back. (I wish folks would self-disclose their interest in begging to undelete and reopen a poof post.) – amWhy Jun 11 '18 at 18:00
• My understanding of the current consensus is that a good answer is not enough to salvage a poor question. I agree with you that there might be an interesting question buried in the linked question, but the question itself is utterly unclear. If you really want to preserve your answer, may I suggest that you instead create a new question that is well-answered by everything in your answer starting at the line "Now, how should we make it formal that 'half' of the integers are even?" – Xander Henderson Jun 11 '18 at 18:03
• @amWhy I do refer to my answer in my post here (and I do find it rather petty to discuss rep - if anything, I spent a while working on the answer and would be disappointed if it was time wasted). – user1729 Jun 11 '18 at 18:42
• @Xander perhaps my underlying question is "why is this a bad question"? It doesn't tick the usual "rubbish question" boxes (they try to interpret their question, etc.). If a question is subtly meaningless, it doesn't make it a bad question (and if a student asked me this question I would spend a pleasurable hour discussing this question with them....) – user1729 Jun 11 '18 at 18:49
• @user1729 The question is not clear. It begins by asking about the density of squares in a group, but ends up being about the right definition of "density." Your answer begins with a discussion of why the question is unclear (so it seems that you agree that the question is unclear), before answering the question of defining density. To my reading, you never address squares in a group, hence you haven't even answered the big, bold, boxed question that was asked. The fact that you have to bend over backwards to clarify the question before answering is indicative of a problem. – Xander Henderson Jun 11 '18 at 19:00
• Again, if you feel strongly that your answer should be preserved, ask a better question. – Xander Henderson Jun 11 '18 at 19:01
• @user1729 So writing what you believe settles/explains the OP's confusion, and goes on to substitute some other interpretation, and all the help you feel you delivered, is a waste of time, unless it translates into points? You are the one who is inferring that, without the upvotes and accept you got for the poor question, writing your answer amounts to having been a waste of time? That's what I consider petty. Maybe we have different definitions. – amWhy Jun 11 '18 at 19:23
• @amWhy no...it is the hiding it that makes me feel this. Noone will ever read it again :-) – user1729 Jun 11 '18 at 20:02
• As Xander Henderson pointed out: Work on writing a better question that is not unclear, posting it, and answer it. Then nothing is "censored" or "hidden". Suggestion: do not repost the question you want to undelete, verbatim, because that would be considered "gaming the system". – amWhy Jun 11 '18 at 20:08
• That no one may ever read it again is a risk you run even if the question were undeleted. I think the world will still orbit the sun, and most all of us will wake up tomorrow, even if they never read your answer. – amWhy Jun 11 '18 at 20:11
• @amWhy sure, it's a risk. But there is a difference between "definitely will never be read" and "may never be read". (as for asking the question again, the effort-to-caring ratio isn't great enough...) – user1729 Jun 11 '18 at 20:18
• Another suggestion, @user1729. You won't run into a similar scenario often, if ever, if you restrict your answers to answering clearer questions, and/or hold off answering an unclear question until the OP clarifies what they mean in comments, in there posts, and/or working with the OP in comments to hypothesize what you think they might mean, so you, also are clear what the question is. If the OP remains clue less, or edits a question with just as confusing edit, as in this case, you're better off not answering at all. – amWhy Jun 11 '18 at 20:18
• Well you cared an awful lot to post a self-interested request (after searching for this thread) to ask for it's undeletion and reopening, and wrote four comments up till now. It wouldn't take you any more time to right a decent clear question, and answer it, than it took you to do all that. – amWhy Jun 11 '18 at 20:20

I want to answer this question:

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1074870/how-meaningful-is-infty-frac12

Please reopen. I think it is not a duplicate.

• Why the downvote? I have a good answer for this question. – Anixx Jan 14 '15 at 12:49

Please review this eighteen month old Question for possible Undeletion.

It covers a basic definition, property, and example in algebraic number theory. I made a few minor tweaks to the wording of the title and the body.

It was closed earlier this month as "off-topic" and then Deleted a few hours ago, despite having four upvotes and six answers with a dozen upvotes among them. [Disclosure: Its removal came to my attention because mine had two upvotes.]

• It's a multipart question, which is bad already. The first and third part are duplicate of other questions, e.g. this one and that one. The second part shows no research effort whatsoever, and is mind-boggling: OP wants to know why transcendental numbers are dense, but doesn't even know what an algebraic number is?! And finally the question has no context. It's a horrendous question. – Najib Idrissi Jul 16 '15 at 7:28
• No, a question about algebraic numbers being dense in the reals is not a duplicate of asking if transcendental numbers are dense. The request for definition of algebraic number does provide context for answering about density of transcendental numbers. It is closely related, yet your opening criticism is "It's a multipart question, which is bad already." – hardmath Jul 16 '15 at 14:13
• math.stackexchange.com/q/1024575 Did you seriously believe that the question wasn't a duplicate...? I made a mistake when choosing which one to link, I don't think it invalidates my point in the slightest. Asking what an algebraic number is in a question about density of transcendental number isn't context, it's laziness. – Najib Idrissi Jul 16 '15 at 14:40
• Someone who professes not to know the definition of "algebraic number" is not necessarily lazy, just ignorant, and this is something they have undertaken to correct by asking here. Whether the Question is a duplicate is strictly speaking irrelevant to the policy on Deletion, and you chose poor examples to illustrate duplication. Referring a user (who asked in Jan. '14), to the Answer about using Baire category (asked/answered in Nov. '14, and which is only a "hint") was not an option back then, and scarcely makes more sense today. – hardmath Jul 16 '15 at 21:04
• Sorry but I cannot vote to reopen a question asking "What is an algebraic number?" (I just gg'ed algebraic number to check that the first link is what it ought to be. It is.) – Did Jul 16 '15 at 22:13
• @Did: Please note that a vote to Undelete is what I requested. – hardmath Jul 17 '15 at 2:57
• OK. What is the final result you have in mind? – Did Jul 17 '15 at 6:33
• You're being disingenuous, @hardmath. OP doesn't just want to know what an algebraic number is, they also want to know why transcendental numbers are dense, and if $\cos(\pi/17)$ is algebraic. To me, this screams "I was given this assignment, but I can't even be bothered to read the definitions of the words it uses. Please do all the work for me." The fact that the target duplicate didn't exist at the time is irrelevant now. And it doesn't change the fact that the post is multiple questions in one. And I have to join Did in asking what you want for this post if not for its reopening. – Najib Idrissi Jul 17 '15 at 7:44
• @Did: I am suggesting the Community review for Undeletion. Since, as I disclosed in my original post, my ox is in small measure being gored here, I have refrained from casting an Undelete vote. However I was frankly alarmed that the Question was deleted, and it would please me if this thread's established mechanism for Community review were able to revoke a decision taken by three non-moderators, only one of which has barely crossed the 20K rep threshold. – hardmath Jul 17 '15 at 12:27
• Sorry but I am not following everything you say (maybe some language problem on my side), and some parts that I am following, I almost certainly disagree with (non-moderators, so what? less or more than 20K, so what?). All in all, I understand that you do want the question reopened. To me, this question is very bad. Unless you have clear and convincing arguments otherwise, to me, this closes (!) the case.. – Did Jul 17 '15 at 14:19

Undeleted, Re-deleted, Re-Undeleted so that it could be Mod-Deleted

The question produced many valuable, useful and highly upvoted answers, directly answering the question, the question itself was not bad, and other users have been wondering about the same, just that some seems to react on the way it was posed, but that doesnt break any rules so that shouldnt be ground for deletion. We cannot abuse our privilegies by deleting questions just becuase we have a personal grudge agaisnt the poser of the question.

Reopened

This question: OP has edited it and I think can be reopened now. OP is not able to ask anymore questions, and looks a bit hurt/confused.

• The grammar in that question could be tremendously improved (unfortunately I don't know enough about the subject to even make sense of the first question -- is he asking if something called "ZFC2U", assuming that's even the properly formatted name, is "categorical"?). IMO if you're going to post in this thread it would be nice to make the necessary improvements first -- in general it's even sufficient for the question to be reopened without posting here. – Najib Idrissi Nov 18 '15 at 15:25
• @NajibIdrissi, neither do I, but I feel apart from that the question has what it needs to be reopened! Maybe someone in that field will notice and fix it! – Jesse P Francis Nov 18 '15 at 15:27
• The introduction of urelements into the axioms suggests some sophistication on the part of the asker, but the second part of their Question, how to express(?) "the cardinality of a set" seems either naive or to presume some subtlety that requires elaboration. It might be expecting too much for an expert in the field to rescue the sense of this Question. – hardmath Nov 18 '15 at 16:00
• @JessePFrancis The editing that was done on this Question amounted to adding the second part of it, without any clarification to the first part. I'm sure your intentions are good, but the frustration of the OP on having a closed question (after receiving a good answer on the first part) does not justify suggesting that flagging it for moderator attention may lead to a lifting of their question ban. – hardmath Nov 18 '15 at 16:33
• @hardmath flagging was suggested since he said he is barred from posting anymore questions and cannot access meta/chat. – Jesse P Francis Nov 18 '15 at 16:35

Reopened

Show that $\left(\int_{0}^{1}\sqrt{f(x)^2+g(x)^2}\ dx\right)^2 \geq \left(\int_{0}^{1} f(x)\ dx\right)^2 + \left(\int_{0}^{1} g(x)\ dx\right)^2$ has been closed for lack of context. The OP added what context they had, which is not much, however, this inequality is very useful and can be answered using an extension of Jensen's Inequality to $\mathbb{R}^2$ that can be useful in other situations.

Reopened

Is $22/7$ an often used approximation for $\pi$?

put on hold. The reasons is "This question is not about mathematics, within the scope defined in the help center."

I don't understand how this isn't about mathematics. I am asking about the use of the approximation $22/7$ for $\pi$. I am not asking about if this is a good approximation or how it came about. I am asking specifically about how widespread the use of the approximation is/was. How widespread was the use of this approximation in history? I could imagine that some might have done research on this very question or the more general question about the use of the approximation. That is all I am asking about.

I can see several ways to answer the question. One answer could simply be

Reopened

Could we please get one more reopen vote for this question?

First, the question is a common basic problem in fractal geometry and a good fit for this site. The original version of the question (when it was closed) was not well written simply because (I think) the OP is not a native English speaker. I've edited the question to hopefully improve it. It also has a solid answer.

Also, there's another question on the site pointing to this one as a duplicate, which seems silly.

Finally, I think it's possible that some of the downvotes were for "missing context" due to apparent lack of effort. This is not a totally simple pre-calculus question, though, and it's not clear to me that such a vote is appropriate.

• Context was never meant to be required for "totally simple pre-calculus questions" only, was it? Hence I fail to get the argument in the last paragraph, I am afraid. – Did Nov 7 '16 at 7:43
• The "duplicate" motivation in your previous-to-last paragraph is also rather odd, if one looks at the history of these two posts (basically, an OP abusing the system). – Did Nov 7 '16 at 7:45
• @Did As I said "it's not clear to me that such a vote is appropriate" indicating that I honestly don't know the extent of the intention of the rather specious "Missing context" rationale for closure. Perhaps that deserves yet another meta question. As far as the duplicate issue goes, I don't think the OP was abusing the system as much as not knowing the system. If your point is that both questions were asked by the same OP, well, then yes. It still seems odd to me to have one question closed as a duplicate of another that is ... closed. – Mark McClure Nov 7 '16 at 11:53
• If posting two identical copies of a question 90 minutes apart is not abusing the system, I do not know what is. And no, no "knowledge of the system" is needed to be aware that this behaviour is abusive, only common sense. – Did Nov 7 '16 at 16:39
• Why is that odd with the dupe? Would you prefer if both were closed separately? Then both reopened separately? If it is an identical duplicate of the same OP clearly it should be pointed out as such, via a duplicate vote. To reiterate the fact that was unclear to you for future reference, it is appropriate to enforce context also for advanced question, arguably even more so than for beginner's question. A specific suggestion for context was even made in a comment. – quid Nov 8 '16 at 11:22

Reopened and closed again

Please consider reopening this question. I think it's completely fine for a graduate student to don't know where to start, if they never learnt about Hopf differential (which is not so much taught in nowadays course on minimal surfaces).

Review in the reopen vote queue didn't go well, as expected.

Edited: The question was edited again. Probably still not good if one has to judge it by the HW standard.

• As it stands, this seems like a standard closure for a question with no source or motivation. Given that the only expansion of the question since closure was essentially "here is my question", this doesn't seem like a strong candidate for reopening yet. I've left a note for the OP, and I hope they will edit the question into something more reasonable. – Carl Mummert Aug 14 '17 at 11:24

Deleted

Integration : $\int\frac{\sin^2x\cos^2x}{(\sin^3x+\cos^3x)^2}{\rm d}x$

This question does not seem off-topic, and has an interesting answer that adds content to the site. Consider re-opening

• "This question does not seem off-topic" What are your reasons to think this? "and has an interesting answer that adds content to the site" What are your reasons to think this? I mean, except for the fact that you are the author of said "interesting answer"? – Did Nov 12 '17 at 13:13
• tbh it was not a self motivated post, i was going across my content and i just observed someone else (rather a reputed user) commented these statements. I seem to agree with it, and I do think answer involves a nice interesting technique which is rather not apparent at first sight. As far as question goes, it is an integration question, and context from OP might be lacking but doesn't make it off-topic in my opinion – avz2611 Nov 12 '17 at 13:22
• @Did I mean I meant interesting from an average pov, you see not everyone is mathematically as sound as you. sometimes you gotta see it from a different pov. (mod edited) – avz2611 Nov 12 '17 at 13:24
• @Did it seems OP was prompted to the action by an (old) comment of robjohn. The post here paraphrases this comment. (I for one do not see the point of this type of content. Just to highlight that the self-praise is not fully self-praise but a quoted praise.) – quid Nov 12 '17 at 14:49
• @quid Indeed. 1. The comment you are referring to had not escaped my attention since, as you can surmise, I had visited the relevant page. 2. I fail to understand said comment. 3. The reactions to my comment here by the OP go from the evasive (not self motivated but, context lacking but not off-topic) to the insulting kind (the disgusting "pedestal" stuff). If ever I needed to be convinced... – Did Nov 12 '17 at 15:30
• @Did: I did not mean to imply that you did not know it, sorry if it came across this way. I just thought there was some value in making it explicit here. Not everybody reading the conversation might follow through and study the full thread linked to. // I removed the pedestal stuff. – quid Nov 12 '17 at 15:47
• As a "puzzle question" (and with no context), this is very much off topic for this site. The purpose of this site is not for users to post questions for which they already know the answer. – Carl Mummert Nov 12 '17 at 23:40
• I don't want to encourage people to post puzzles, especially if they don't also post a solution, and I don't want to encourage people to answer puzzle questions. And yet I feel that insofar as m.se is supposed to function as a repository of knowledge it's a shame to have this clever solution to an integration problem deleted. I wonder whether there would be support for an m.se question where we could gather the nice integration questions/solutions that are currently scattered all over the site. – Gerry Myerson Nov 13 '17 at 0:59

Conditional expectation $E(Y^3/X^2\mid X/Y)$

This was closed as "missing context or details". But this is not the kind of question that can be done in a routine fashion by plodding through techniques mechanically; rather it is challenging, for what it is. And the poster actually has the right idea but doesn't know how to supply the details. So this is not at all like copying a homework problem without understanding it.

• This might be one of the most ridiculous requests I have seen for a long time... For the record, the question has no context and is mathematically wrong. The OP has been told so and, until now, is staying silent. 'Nough said? – Did Apr 7 '18 at 8:36
• "rather it is challenging": what is challenging? Finding a related correct question? Finding the context? Michael, if you want to know the truth I did not only vote to close but I also downvoted for the two reasons mentioned by Did. – Davide Giraudo Apr 7 '18 at 10:03
• @Did : "Mathematically wrong" is not a reason to close a question. – Michael Hardy Apr 7 '18 at 15:23
• @DavideGiraudo : The answer to the question in your comment would appear in my posted answer to the question. That a question has presuppositions that are mistaken is not a reason to close it; rather it affects the content of any posted answer. – Michael Hardy Apr 7 '18 at 15:29
• See my comment on main, which I will not repeat here. Time to pass to something else, MH... – Did Apr 7 '18 at 15:35
• @MichaelHardy Even if this is not reason, "has no context" is a reason. This is implies that "mathematically wrong and has no context" is still a reason. Except if you want to argue that being wrong makes up for having no context. Do you want to make this argument? – quid Apr 7 '18 at 16:48

Reopened, reclosed, deleted, undeleted, deleted by a moderator

This question was closed as off-topic for missing context or other details. In fact the OP did explain what he’d already attempted, so the relevant context was present from the beginning. It’s perfectly true that he’s missing something that most of us will find blatantly obvious, but that is hardly grounds for closing the question. Please reopen this question.

• This reopening suggestion generated comments that first turned into a debate, but then started devolving towards personal insults. An automatic system flag was raised for the number of comments. I deleted the whole lot, because I couldn't find a break point that would not leave the impression that one of you was given "the last word". I think that the involved users already know how the others feel, so continuing this is pointless. You are welcome to start a discussion in a more appropriate meta thread. There I will promise to let our usual "free-for-all" live its course. – Jyrki Lahtonen Jan 18 '15 at 18:21

I would like to request for undeleting this question. It was asked yesterday, closed and deleted now. The question might not be up to standard, in the sense that no effort is shown. But I think the OP at least should have more time to improve the question.

• It should be mentioned that there is already a separate discussion about this particular question on meta (with a somewhat cryptic title): Question closed over a valid Tag – Martin Sleziak Jun 27 '15 at 12:03
• But the OP already has all the time they want "to improve the question", no? – Did Jun 27 '15 at 14:49
• @Did : I don't expect others to stay connected to SE "continuously". I expect them to visit, for example, once a day and check all the information. In this case, I doubt if the OP has seen all the response of the meta thread yet (which might be helpful for the OP to improve the question). – user99914 Jun 27 '15 at 22:27
• Thus the motivation to reopen in the last sentence of your post here is offtopic? – Did Jun 27 '15 at 22:29
• @Did: Can you explain more? – user99914 Jun 27 '15 at 22:35
• You invoked time as a reason to reopen, I noted that time is NOT a factor, what is there to explain more? – Did Jun 27 '15 at 22:36
• @Did: Can you explain why it is not a factor? (and that's an undeletion) – user99914 Jun 27 '15 at 22:37
• I already did but here we go again: because the OP has all the time they want to improve the question. – Did Jun 27 '15 at 22:38
• @Did : Okay, so there's not much to discuss then. But think it this way: If someone ask a question on meta for an reopening of a question, and come back and see the question is even deleted. How bad is that as an experience in SE. I just cannot agree that enough time to deal with the question. – user99914 Jun 27 '15 at 22:44
• Said "experience" indicates that the call to arms posted on meta has been less effective than improving the question itself would have been (a task which does not interest the OP at all, seemingly). And this seems a quite suitable take-home message. – Did Jun 27 '15 at 22:50

This has gone through two cycles of a deletion/undeletion skirmish.

While I agree that this question is not well-written, and normally should not be on the site, I think that the nature of the (in fact, my) solution is interesting, and something that I think is worth keeping on StackExchange (and I suspect that the people who upvoted an answer to such a poorly-received question would agree with me). It seems a shame to delete the question if it means also deleting the answer. Could someone explain the rationale for deleting both, even if the question is not restored?

[Moderator note]

I implied at some point that I would delete and lock this question on September 10th, because I believed that the answerer would then get to keep their rep (as the question became 3 months old on that date). However, the correct rule is that 2 months is enough, but the question needs to spend that much time undeleted. We are still relatively far from that. A fellow moderator expressed the concern that deleting and locking the question now feels a bit harsh. Meanwhile the original poster has edited the question a little. I guess that means we need a round of re-evaluations, so do comment and/or act whichever way you see fit. Sorry about being wishy-washy, Jyrki

[/Mod note]

• I did not vote. But the question seem quite bad as is, thus it is deleted. The deletion of the answer is "collateral damage." While existence of good answers is taken into account, it is often not weighed that much. What should be done in a case where the question is initially quite bad but there is still something interesting, is to improve the question via an edit. This can still be done even while deleted (deleted posts can be edited). – quid Jun 18 '15 at 22:44
• I'm not going to take on the editing job myself, but it seems to me that if you let $$A={uvt+wsr\over w^2+u^2},\quad B={usr-wvt\over w^2+u^2}$$ then it should be possible to write the integral in a line or two. – Gerry Myerson Jun 19 '15 at 0:37
• I'm one of the users who voted to delete the question. I did so because I couldn't picture a single scenario where this Q&A would help anyone other than the OP. I believe that in the history of mankind, no one will ever need to compute this particular integral by hand; it was probably obtained from the simpler integral you found in your answer, and then applying random substitutions to make it look obscene. I also don't believe that, in the case someone would really need to solve the integral, they would find the Q&A unless they manage to write it exactly like the OP did, a feat in itself. – Najib Idrissi Jun 19 '15 at 7:19
• I did not vote to delete. In its current form, the question is really bad and useless to everyone. The answer is good, but not enough to counter-balance the horror of the question (I strongly doubt anyone could produce such an answer). Chappers, you already have the joy to deal with this challenge, so just let the horror rest in peace. – achille hui Jun 19 '15 at 11:38
• @Najib, if I show you how to factor some particular 200-digit number, you may rightly point out that no one will ever need, or even want, to factor that particular 200-digit number. But someone may find that the method I have given for factoring that particular 200-digit number will enable her to factor some other large number that she really does need (or want) to factor. And she wouldn't have to write my 200-digit number in order to find the Q&A. – Gerry Myerson Jun 20 '15 at 6:03
• @achille, maybe I don't understand what you mean when you write, "I strongly doubt anyone could produce such an answer," as it is evident that someone has produced exactly that answer. – Gerry Myerson Jun 20 '15 at 6:05
• @Gerry (Maybe it's because of your particular example, but are there even humans on this planet that want to factor 200-digit numbers by hand anymore? Computers are so much better than us at this.) If the goal of the Q&A is to showcase the particular technique Chappers used (noticing a pattern using trig identities, finding the right substitution), I'm sure a less obscene integral can be used, and there's heavy editing to be done to make the question palatable and findable. I'm not willing to put in such work, but maybe someone is -- as it is, I'm still not convinced the Q&A is useful. – Najib Idrissi Jun 20 '15 at 7:22
• @Najib, I never said anything about doing it by hand. But even the fastest computers are useless at factoring 200-digit numbers, unless programmed with very clever algorithms. And the algorithm that factors one huge number can be used to factor others. I think the point of this Q&A is that even a really, really ugly integral can sometimes be evaluated if you go at it the right way, and to illustrate that, the uglier the integral, the better. – Gerry Myerson Jun 20 '15 at 11:46
• I am leaning towards deleting the question unless the question is improved. I believe that if I postpone the decision till September 10, then Chappers gets to keep the rep points. We are reasonably close to that date, so I'm inclined to wait. – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 1 '15 at 13:44
• @Jyrki Lahtonen: the continuing issue for the site, of course, is the multiple deletion votes by the same individuals. Right now there are 6 deletion votes by distinct individuals compared to 4 undeletion votes by distinct individuals. I want to continue encouraging the moderators to develop a policy about this -- would it truly be the desired outcome for the delete voters to just vote to delete again? – Carl Mummert Sep 1 '15 at 13:59
• @CarlMummert: I am aware of that and factor it into my decisions. Formulating an official policy is more difficult. Ideally software could prohibit participation in multiple cycles. Your encouragement is duly noted. – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 1 '15 at 14:02
• @JyrkiLahtonen I am sorry about the problem my question caused, I only found out about it today. I'll go back and edit it with the form achille hui posted in the comments later. That being said, while it may not be useful to the onlooker, I believe that it still contains value in techniques of solving these integrals. – Teoc Sep 5 '15 at 5:59
• @Vladimir Lenin: the problem with this question, like a certain number of integration questions, is that it has no motivation whatsoever. The question should describe where this integral arose and why its value is of interest. Why not edit the question to include this information? At least two others requested this information in the comments of the question. – Carl Mummert Sep 5 '15 at 11:33
• Regarding the new paragraph: all this squabble over 76 reputation points... (Reputation was, as far as I understand the motivation behind waiting to re-delete the question) – Najib Idrissi Sep 16 '15 at 19:47
• Why would deleting the question now seem a bit harsh? The same general facts still hold: the question is undeleted only because of multiple voting. It was re-opened for a while because others did not vote to delete because of the plan to delete the question on Sep 10 - the question was lacking only one deletion vote for some time before it was re-opened, so if they had not waited for the planned moderator action, the question would have been re-deleted and ineligible for re-opening. But the question is now closed again, so it is in the same general state it was in before. @JyrkiLahtonen – Carl Mummert Sep 17 '15 at 1:21

Request for reopening: Is there more than one looping sequence in the Collatz conjecture?

Votes to suspend and then close this question on the grounds that the question was unclear were rendered out of date by edits to the opening 3 sentences already within 2 days of the question being suspended. No voters seem to have checked back to find that the requested edits had in fact been made before the question was then closed.

• Any advice as to how I can put the term 'Closed' into standard sub-head format most welcome, thanks. – Travelling Salesman Sep 21 '15 at 14:07
• 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). In general, if you want to see how something was formatted, you can click on "edit" on a post and see the source (without committing the edit, of course). I added a link to the question -- is it the right one? – Najib Idrissi Sep 21 '15 at 14:09
• Okay I'm confused by your latest edit. You want the question reopened, but you want it to remain deleted...? – Najib Idrissi Sep 21 '15 at 14:09
• My mistake, @NajibIdrissi. Wasn't clear on the distinction between closed and deleted. Thanks - that is the right link you attached. – Travelling Salesman Sep 21 '15 at 14:11
• There are different states a question can be in. Your question at the moment is closed (meaning no new answers can be given) and deleted (it won't show up in the search, only you and users with 10k reputation points can see it, it cannot receive new answers or comments). See the help center for more information. – Najib Idrissi Sep 21 '15 at 14:13
• That explanation makes it clearer to me now. Appreciated. – Travelling Salesman Sep 21 '15 at 14:14
• I did warn you, at your earlier meta question, meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/21249/…, "By the way, if your question about a famous open problem is "Would someone please check my proof of Goldbach's Conjecture?" then it's pretty much guaranteed to be closed real fast, whether on m.se or on MO." Will Jagy also warned you, "Trav, that is not going to be a reasonable question. Certainly I always vote to close such things, and i do not read the attempt presented." – Gerry Myerson Sep 22 '15 at 0:01
• You did warn me, @GerryMyerson, that's true. On the other hand, neither warning covered the reason actually claimed for closing it. If anything, it was closed for not using that phrasing. – Travelling Salesman Sep 22 '15 at 10:33
• People voting to close a question are presented with a very small least of reasons from which they have to choose. Sometimes the actual reason isn't among the ones on offer. – Gerry Myerson Sep 23 '15 at 10:04
• I see. So no obligation for reasons on the list to actually apply in a given case then? The list could always be extended so the real reason for closing a question could be one of the reasons on the list. – Travelling Salesman Sep 23 '15 at 16:35
• No, the list can't always be extended. Look, why don't you take a few months to familiarize yourself with how these sites work, instead of coming on like you know better than people who have been here for years? – Gerry Myerson Sep 23 '15 at 23:24
• I don't think I came on remotely like that @GerryMyerson. I've been polite to everyone here and thanked them for help & advice. – Travelling Salesman Sep 25 '15 at 23:06

Reopened, deleted by the OP

This question has been edited by the OP to clarify its meaning. I think it should be reopened.

• Was there anything that prevented you from improving the question by correctly inserting the image in it, or even better, transcribing the equations in the image in mathjax? – Najib Idrissi Jan 10 '16 at 8:45
• No, there's nothing preventing me from transcribing the image. Is that a request you're making? My main point is that it's now perfectly clear what the OP is asking, contrary to the reason for closure. – David Jan 10 '16 at 16:29
• It's my opinion that before making a request in this thread, one could at least make sure there are no glaring issues with the question one wants to be reopened. – Najib Idrissi Jan 10 '16 at 19:10

Reopened.

How to promote explanation of closure in comments?

This question appears to have been misunderstood, apparently by people who read the beginning of a posting and decide what they think of it before coming to the part where it actually poses a question. So I've deleted the beginning of it and put in a cross-reference to another question, of which it was alleged to be an exact duplicate but was not.

• I'm not sure what a post on meta about a post that's still on the front page of meta is supposed to achieve. Can you explain? – Najib Idrissi Mar 18 '16 at 16:16

Reopened, Reclosed, Deleted

Some people have hair-triggers when voting to close a question: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1377205/injections-surjections-bijections/1377225

The poster is pretty thorough about giving his thoughts on the problem. The fact the he's confused about the topic should not be considered a reason to close the question.

• 1) I don't think this is a very good question (it seems like what the OP put forth was really motivated by an outside source, like from a teacher or some such source), and 2) I think the real problem in this case, and my main reason for voting to close, was that OP and several other users posted the exact same question in a narrow time window. The same thing occurred with a certain induction question yesterday. I think the hostile reaction(s) / votes to close were primarily due to the fact that there is improper behavior going on in reposting the same question via multiple accounts. – Daniel W. Farlow Jul 29 '15 at 18:20
• -1 for "hair-trigger". – Did Jul 30 '15 at 5:08
• Needs 1 more undelete vote – Gone Jul 18 '16 at 22:54

Reopened, marked as duplicate

Why is $e$ the number that it is?

This is one of the best questions posted here and should be re-opened. If I could post an answer I would mention the following. It is easy to show that $(d/dx) 2^x = (2^x\cdot\text{constant}) \approx 2^x\cdot 0.69$, or $(d/dx) 10^x = (10^x\cdot\text{constant}) \approx 10^x \cdot 2.3.$ It is only when the base is $e$ that the constant is $1$, thus: $(d/dx) e^x = (e^x \cdot\text{constant}) = e^x\cdot 1.$ This is similar to the reason why radians are used in calculus: $(d/dx) \sin x = (\text{constant}\cdot\cos x),$ and the "constant" is $1$ only if radians are used.

• This is already given in a way, isn't it? (See par's answer, for example.) Plus, the entire question appears to be a duplicate. Plus, it is not explained well as OP does not say what $e$ does mean to them. They ignored a couple of explicit requests for clarification for a long time. Then they said "My question is more along the lines of why e is 2.7182… On an alien world [...], could there be a similar constant that has all the properties of e, but is not 2.7182…?" The answer to this is obviously "no"; with some specified properties, okay. But OP doesn't tell what prop "e" has to them. – quid Jul 31 '16 at 13:53

Deleted

https://math.stackexchange.com/q/1873248/53259

This was unilaterally closed based on a misunderstanding as explained here. The screenshot here misleads and errs, because it fails to reveal my editing of the old question that caused the old question to look like the new question.

• To copy Pedro Tamaroff's screenshot, this is identical to a question which was closed by five users as unclear, and then deleted by three others. So at least nine users (+me) do not think these are good clear questions. – user296602 Aug 2 '16 at 20:06
• @T.Bongers That screenshot misleads and is the problem, because it fails to reveal my editing of the old question that caused the old question to look like the new question. Do you understand this? – Accounting Aug 2 '16 at 20:09
• Also, you requested the reopening of the original in this very thread. The request was badly received. – user296602 Aug 2 '16 at 20:09
• @T.Bongers No: the original old question and the new are NOT identical. – Accounting Aug 2 '16 at 20:09
• Regardless of whether they are textually identical, they are essentially the same question modulo some rearrangment of the text - certainly in terms of the vague parts about chestnuts and apples. Regardless of the history (which isn't, strictly speaking, relevant to this request): I do not think this is a clear question and I oppose reopening. – user296602 Aug 2 '16 at 20:15

Re-opened, then closed as missing context, then deleted, then undeleted, then deleted

This question was closed as unclear, but it seems impossible to imagine a more clearly expressed question.

(It is also complained in comments below that "context" is insufficient. However, the missing context was supplied in comments under the question, where the original poster makes it clear what difficulties were encountered.)

• I agree, this should have been closed for lack of context instead (although the introduction of the random variable $T$ makes no sense at present). – Did Feb 12 '17 at 20:01
• @Did The introduction of $T$ appears to be intended as the way to Rao‒Blackwellize a crude unbiased estimator. – Michael Hardy Feb 12 '17 at 20:04
• Yeah -- and where is the OP following up on this? Oops, I forgot, they do not follow up on anything, they are just stating the problem they want to see solved for them. – Did Feb 12 '17 at 20:06
• @Did : The needed context is supplied by the fact that the OP is following up on this and explained in comments under the question what difficulties were encountered. – Michael Hardy Feb 12 '17 at 20:10
• Sorry but no. The comment you are referring to merely adds an approach they were given. If the words in the comment were meaning anything to the OP, they would follow up on them, one way or another. – Did Feb 12 '17 at 20:13
• Wasn't this a bit too quick to delete the post? I see that the OP was not on the site since the closure, so they did not have a chance to improve the post. Should not we wait at least the 5 days during which an edit can push the question into review queue? This would be probably better as a general question, but I do not have time or energy at a moment to open a new discussion on meta. @Did What do you think about this? (Sorry for ping you personally, but you are the only of the people who voted on that post who is pingable here.) – Martin Sleziak Feb 14 '17 at 6:50
• @MartinSleziak Since your comment, the OP "came back" and the post was undeleted, but not modified in the slightest. Would a new vote to delete be seen as "a bit too quick" now? – Did Feb 14 '17 at 20:42
• @Did In my previous comment I hinted at possibility of posting a new separate thread about this issue. Now I noticed that it would be a duplicate of this one: Are we too trigger-happy about deleting (relatively) new posts? In any case, thanks for your response both here and in the comments to the linked question. – Martin Sleziak Feb 16 '17 at 6:53

Reopened

Are the elements of a set within a set also the elements of the latter?

I wonder whether any of those who voted to close this question as "unclear what you're asking" did not understand the question, or whether they simply disapprove of the clumsy and imprecise language in which the question was expressed. The latter should not be grounds for closing a question, but rather for including in one's answer something about how to express it better. In the former case, those who don't understand the question might realize what it says if they look at the posted answers, and then they will probably realize that they could have understood it if they had put only a little bit more effort into the matter. In this particular instance it won't take much.

PS: I now see that this question was quickly reopened after I posted this.