46
$\begingroup$

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

Some guidelines:

  • Please be polite, and respect the many different viewpoints in our diverse community. This goes for the person making the request as well as those commenting on it.

  • There is a reopen queue. Please wait until a post has gone through this queue, before posting here. Notice that the first edit after the question is closed pushes the question into the reopen review queue if the edit is done within 5 days of closure, and so does a reopen vote. (If the review has already been finished, it is shown on the timeline of the question.) When in doubt, wait 24 hours after the last substantive action.

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

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

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

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


Earlier versions of this thread that served as a model:

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I edited the post inspired by a concern expressed in a comment. $\endgroup$ – quid Jul 19 '20 at 23:49

189 Answers 189

1
3 4
5
6 7
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted, deleted (mod)

Please consider casting the final undelete vote to this post:

Which among the given series converges

This is not a zero effort post: OP has ruled out some choices for the problem and has reduced the problem to a simpler one. This is a good attempt. Also, @Theo Bendit has posted a well written answer.


Mod comment (quid): I deleted it as the question remains unclear in its formulation. As such it has the potential to create confusion and in any case the mathematics is well-known and in one way or the other certainly on the site. It is good that OP apparently got competent help. This does not alter the fact hat preserving the thread as is in my opinion does not ad value to the site and to the contrary degrades it (adding a confusing question). If somebody want to preserve the answer they should have improved the question, or create a separate one. That's still an option.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The asker has not ruled out several choices for the problem. The problem is not a multiple choice question. Rather, they were asked to examine each of those four series, and determine which converge. If anything, the question is four distinct true / false questions (making it "Too Broad"). $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 28 '19 at 16:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Moreover, you claim that it is not a zero effort question. Even if I agreed with you regarding the idea that "showing effort" is, in and of itself, sufficient context, I disagree about the effort which has been shown. The question is ultimately about one of the four series being presented, and there is no work shown for that series. For the remaining three, the asker claims to have already found appropriate counter-examples, but don't actually show any of that effort. Claiming to have done something is not the same as demonstrating it. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 28 '19 at 16:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "The problem is not a multiple choice question. ... which converge." One could turn almost all the multiple choice problems into non-multiple-choice ones in such a way. The rest of your comments are based on this biased assumption. "the asker claims to have already found appropriate counter-examples, but don't actually show any of that effort." OP summarized as partial work that three items haven been done and now he/she focuses on item (c). Not guilty. The strong action of deletion of this post is unreasoning. $\endgroup$ – user9464 Jul 28 '19 at 17:30
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The question consists of four different T/F questions. It is not a single multiple choice question. There are four different questions here. Determining the truth or falsity of parts (a), (b), and (d) does absolutely nothing to shed light on (c), especially considering that the asker doesn't actually show any of their work, but simply states that they have already completed those parts. It lacks context and is too broad. It was rightfully closed and deleted. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 28 '19 at 18:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ One has to wonder how they could show b yet not c. Makes one wonder of the merits of their undisclosed approaches. The paraphrase in meta OP is false as pointed out by @XanderHenderson and your reply is strange in that the critique of you paraphrase (not even the main OP) was not that the question is a multiple choice question but rather that there is not partial progress to the question asked. The best one can say is that the question is not 'several questions asked in one' (contrary to what one might think) and the Q provides some limited context by giving related problems they can solve. $\endgroup$ – quid Jul 30 '19 at 11:47
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'd say if they had sketched their solutions to those they can solve, it might be sufficient context. As is, it does not add all that much, especially since the partial progress is implausible. Indeed it appears it is partly false as they might have misunderstood the question (the meaning of necessarily). Of course, it's anyone's guess since they do not provide the claimed solutions. Clear case of actual lack of context; we cannot identify the extent of the problems of OP. $\endgroup$ – quid Jul 30 '19 at 11:50
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted, delete (mod)

Please undelete this post Map subset of a group to zero?

This is not a trivial exercise. It has a very detailed thoughtful answer by @Arturo Magidin.


Mod comment (quid): I deleted this one, as the question-post is still not clarified and the thread including the answer post is a back and forth. Like: "It cannot be this, you may mean that. Oh, now you said it's about something else." I am glad that OP was helped, but I think there is no archival value to this in its current form. As usual, those that want to can extract whatever they think is valuable, via edits or moving of content.

$\endgroup$
12
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ If you plan to keep saying things like "Redeleted (6/17/19) by a same group of users. One initiated three times the delete votes and one voted three times to delete this post. – Jack Jun 17 at 22:01" you might refrain from voting to undelete repeatedly, especially on posts where there was not recast delete vote prior to that. (There is now though.) $\endgroup$ – quid Jul 13 '19 at 15:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There has been no action whatsoever (to my knowledge) from mods or the system to prevent casting/initiating deletion votes for some particular posts over and over again by mostly same group of users. It is not difficult to count such instances. I assume from such observation that repeated voting is not discouraged in general. "If you plan to keep saying things like" This is an absurd and highly misleading comment from a moderator: your quoted comment refers to one particular proposal and I have never said it somewhere else. $\endgroup$ – user9464 Jul 13 '19 at 18:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I take it you do not plan to keep saying things like the one I quoted, then. Well you did say "On the other hand, what one can see from the timeline is that a user voted to delete the posts twice while there are people who hold different opinions have already voted to undelete and reopen the post." which also raises double-voting in a critical way. $\endgroup$ – quid Jul 13 '19 at 18:57
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ There has been no action whatsoever from mods or the system to prevent casting/initiating undeletion votes for some particular posts over and over again by mostly same group of users either. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jul 14 '19 at 16:26
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid I think a mod deletion was highly improper here. Sad to see you once again forcing your personal opinions onto the community. These decisions should be made by the community - not an individual. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Aug 4 '19 at 15:24
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Bill after about ten changes of status I think it's about time somebody decides it one way or the other. Visibly the community did not reach a solution. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 4 '19 at 15:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid "Changes of status" are not harming anything. There have been more in the past and they eventually settled down. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Aug 4 '19 at 15:27
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Bill it's a distractions, possibly confusing, and bumps this meta post. Certainly there are worse things, but I consider it as fundamentally unreasonable to have "blinking" posts that are un-deleted every other day or every other week. (This one is going on since a month.) $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 4 '19 at 15:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid I think there are for more important matters that deserve to be deemed "fundamentally unreasonable". This shouldn't even be on the radar. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Aug 4 '19 at 15:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque examples? $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 4 '19 at 15:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid One of the reasons that I initially created this thread (original version) was so that there would be only one thread being bumped on such matters. The bumps are expected and are completely normal. Those with no interest in such matters can easily ignore it. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Aug 4 '19 at 15:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque that's fine it does however not address the other points and does not provide any examples. Anyway, if you see things that I or another moderator should address please bring them to our attention. If you want to discuss this particular post in more detail, post a question about it. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 4 '19 at 15:49
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, reopened, closed

Please consider undeleting this post:

How to find ${\large\int}_1^\infty\frac{1-x+\ln x}{x \left(1+x^2\right) \ln^2 x} \mathrm dx$?

This is not a trivial exercise and OP shows his/her thoughts that "Routine textbook methods for this complicated integral fail." It has several very well-written detailed answers with rather high number of upvotes.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ '[S]hows his/her thoughts that "Routine textbook methods for this complicated integral fail."' That's not relevant context. Most likely it's a constructed challenge and should have been declared as such. This type of post borders on a misuse of the site. The following comment at score 13 is relevant I feel like it's becoming a trend to ask questions about practically impossible integrals. $\endgroup$ – quid Jul 8 '19 at 19:34
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ You think "That's not relevant context." And this proposal focus particularly on undeleting the post. Considering THREE high-quality answers (4+31+40 upvotes) that already existed I find it ridiculous (yes, this is my rant) to delete this OLD post. If there is any misuse of this site at all, the deletion, in this particular case, IS misuse of the privilege of votes. [mod redacted] $\endgroup$ – user9464 Jul 8 '19 at 19:58
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Bringing up other users in this form is out-of-line, in general. In the specific case it's also highly misleading. (I removed it.) $\endgroup$ – quid Jul 8 '19 at 20:24
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted, locked and merged with duplicate (mod)

Please consider undeleting: How to count the number of good permutations?

This is not a duplicate and has a good answer.

$\endgroup$
1
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened


Please consider reopening the question:

Theorems with the greatest impact on group theory as a whole (note that the question is about infinite group theory).

It is currently closed as "primarily opinion-based...Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise."

I disagree with this close reason:

  1. As the 11-upvoted comment states, "This is a good question and does not deserve to be closed. Understanding the theorems that are considered most important in any field of math is an important step towards understanding that field." The theory of infinite groups is an area of active research, and is not covered specifically in an undergraduate course on groups. In fact, many results covered in undergraduate group theory are not applicable to infinite groups (Sylow's theorems are a good example, and are mentioned in the question).

  2. The boiler-plate reason is that "answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise". There are currently two answers; both are based on facts and references, and both are by professional mathematicians (one is by Andrés E. Caicedo and the other is by me, and indeed my research is in infinite group theory).

Finally, I want to end with a comment: The question is almost 6 years old (5 years and 355 days, or so). The close votes here seem to have occurred after a re-tag (which I presume happened after I linked to the question elsewhere). Closing reasonably-upvoted old questions like this has the potential to discourage improvements to old question and to discourage linking to old questions.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ re 3. The question had been closed back then already. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 19 '19 at 15:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I've edited 3 (it wasn't really a reason to reopen). Yes, it was closed and then it was reopened. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Aug 19 '19 at 15:23
  • $\begingroup$ So, the question was already controversial back then. Which is documented by the first comment at score +12. Don't create false narratives; $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 19 '19 at 15:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid I don't see what was false about my narrative (or that I have written a narrative). My the purpose of the final paragraph (in both current and original form) was to point out the age of the question and what closing such old questions could mean. I did not mean to suggest that the question was not originally "controversial". $\endgroup$ – user1729 Aug 19 '19 at 15:30
  • $\begingroup$ Further, professional mathematician or not (what type of argument is that by the way?), one of the answers does not even seem to answer the question at all. // The (at least implied) narrative is that after years were this question was welcome suddenly people took issue with the question, which is incorrect or at least incomplete. To not even mention this is careless at best. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 19 '19 at 15:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ People can (and should) look at the question and make up their own mind. I do not believe that it is my job here to give them all the relevant information (because what is relevant differs from person to person - for example, you focused on the close votes, but the question has only one downvote). Re "professional mathematician": my point was what I have the specific expertise to answer this question (and ignore the other answer if you wish). $\endgroup$ – user1729 Aug 19 '19 at 15:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It might not be your job to give all the relevant information. But I do believe that integrity ought to dictate not to give a highly biased description of the situation. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 19 '19 at 15:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The above being said, I do not have a particular issue with the question itself. I'd say it still falls on the good side in the good subjective-bad subjective dichotomy, and the questioner had made an effort to steer clear of the pitfalls of the superlative. I cast the final vote to reopen. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 19 '19 at 16:12
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted, reopened

Please consider undeleting and reopening this post: radical center of three circles.

This post clearly indicated an attempt and has a detailed answer.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Please consider undeleting and reopening this elementary question: On proving $\sum_{k=1}^{2^n+1} \frac{1}{k} > \frac{n}{2}$

OP had his/her thoughts on the problem and also added an attempt for verification in the post after interaction in comments with others. This question has also been edited.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Did you check to see whether it's a duplicate? Looks to me like the kind of question that would have been asked before. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Aug 23 '19 at 12:20
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson: I can only find a similar one. Since I have a very narrow definition of duplicate, I don't consider it as a duplicate to the mentioned one. Others may probably find closer one. One may close it as a duplicate if one does find one. But I would object the strong action of deletion of this post. $\endgroup$ – user9464 Aug 23 '19 at 18:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Asker account deleted, answer a brief hint, the argument definitely on the site numerous times, the specific variant a bit artificial. Why in the world should we keep that? $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 23 '19 at 21:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid Why the account deleted is a 'point to count' to support the deletion? $\endgroup$ – user486983 Aug 23 '19 at 21:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Isa sometimes arguments are made along the lines of: "Maybe the post is not great, but OP made an effort and we should not discourage them via deletion." There are also glimpses of that in this meta post. Once the account is gone that caries rather less wait. Differently, it's not so much that it's a point for deletion, but it's a point less against deletion. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 23 '19 at 22:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid I don't get it. Your previous comment suggested like 4 'bad' things about the post, so why to keep that. $\endgroup$ – user486983 Aug 23 '19 at 22:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Isa I asked why we would want to keep the post. A common argument given is that we keep it not to penalize the person that asked it. This argument does not really apply in this case. Another argument is that the answer is good; Again does not apply. Still another argument we keep it for others users. But it seems unlikely to be useful, as the argument in principle is on the site numerous times and the specific version is a bit strange in a non interesting way. Thus, I still am at a loss why anyone would bother to keep that particular post. Surely there are plenty of better deleted posts. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 23 '19 at 22:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid I may agree with you the day I had 10k :) with your mentioned points: answer a brief hint, the argument definitely on the site numerous times, the specific variant a bit artificial. Except your first point: account deleted. I don't see any possibility of me agreeing with that point. $\endgroup$ – user486983 Aug 23 '19 at 23:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Not exactly the same, but the question seems rather close to Prove this inequality: $\frac n2 \le \frac{1}{1}+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}+...+\frac1{2^n - 1} \le n$. However, it's not suitable for merging - the bounds for sum are different, the other post has an answer rather similar to the one already posted. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Aug 29 '19 at 6:58
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted

I nominate Optimization problem for routes for undeletion because the question asker self-deleted his question shortly after receiving an answer.

$\endgroup$
0
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, reopened, closed, deleted, undeleted, reopened

Please consider undeleting the following question:

Is $\int_1^\infty\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Gamma(x)}}\mathrm dx$ a rational number?

I agree on the reason for closing this question. Even though the post is somewhat strange in its wording it appears to be overall interesting for the community (as the upvotes outweigh the downvotes resulting in a balance of $+6$). Additionally, the integral appearing in the question is strongly related to the Fransén-Robertson Constant and might be of help as future reference for this topic (as a number of relevant posts is also linked with the deleted one).


The question has got deleted again. I have still my POV listed above and I would like to hear the reason for re-deleting the question.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I voted to undelete, but I have to say, it's a highly undermotivated question. I could write down a thousand expressions evaluating to real numbers, and ask for each, whether it's rational, without giving any reason to think it is, or any reason to be particularly interested in whether it is. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 29 '19 at 23:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I have to agree on this issue. And indeed, the motivation is clearly missing but what remains is a relation to an actual known constant, which is from my POV the only thing which makes this question worth keeping. $\endgroup$ – mrtaurho Jul 30 '19 at 10:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ OP has shown no interest in the question, having refused the invitation to improve it. mrtaurho, I suggest you post an improved version of the question, and your answer, so the material won't be lost. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Aug 11 '19 at 23:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Thank you, for your response. I will do so, as soon as I have time! :) $\endgroup$ – mrtaurho Aug 11 '19 at 23:16
  • $\begingroup$ I see, mrt, that you never did get the time, which is a shame, since (as I commented on the question the other day) I don't think the main objections to the question have been addressed. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Aug 27 '19 at 0:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I was rather busy. Additionally, I was (and still am) rather confused what to do about this question. It has been reopened two times and so posting a new question (even an appropriate) would be in fact a duplicate. So I decided to wait for now. $\endgroup$ – mrtaurho Aug 27 '19 at 0:14
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, reopened, closed-as-duplicate

Please consider undeleting and reopening the edited post: How can one show that $\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{n}{n!}=e$?

The user had difficulties in articulating his/her own thoughts. The elementary question in the post is clear. It is also clear from OP's comment and picture attached to the original post what the asker was thinking.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You should disclose the fact that you made significant edits to the question after it was deleted. The question itself is a duplicate of this question (and probably has other, better dupe targets; I just happen to know the one I linked to since I interacted with it two years ago). I don't see a reason to undelete it. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Aug 28 '19 at 12:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I posted a link to an exact duplicate under that thread. Pointless to reopen I think. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 28 '19 at 18:59
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I have edited my post “Most intuitive” average of $P$ for all $x\in A \cap [a,b]$, where $A$ is countable and the average is unique? and waited for five days. Is it clear what I am asking? If not, could any suggestions be made?

Edit:

Users are trying to delete my post. If a post is unclear why would you to delete it? This is Math Stack Exchange, not Math Overflow.

I made more edits. Is it clear now? If not please explain. Offer one hint.

If you are wondering why I have a hard time explaining my post it’s because I have not mastered the concepts needed to explain this? I don’t care if this is worthless or gold. I don’t care if anyone steals this. I just want some guidance and most of my professors are too busy.

Second Edit:

I shortened the post to one question and a couple of paragraphs.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Rahul commented on 21 August that you had a couple of equals signs where there should have been element-of symbols. You never engaged with that correction. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Aug 30 '19 at 0:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Correction made. Is there anything else? $\endgroup$ – Arbuja Aug 30 '19 at 0:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't know. It's not my area, and it's long enough to be a PhD thesis. Sorry, but I won't be going through it in detail. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Aug 30 '19 at 2:32
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Users are trying to delete my post. Is this acceptable? $\endgroup$ – Arbuja Aug 30 '19 at 21:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As Gerry has pointed out, your post is very long. Have you thought in splitting the content and ask many questions instead of only one? $\endgroup$ – user486983 Aug 30 '19 at 21:40
  • $\begingroup$ Or you could also start a bounty :) I think you can set one for +150 $\endgroup$ – user486983 Aug 30 '19 at 21:41
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I really don't know what to tell you. Maybe what's unclear is which of these many questions is the question: What is the "most intuitive" average of $P(x)$...? What do you think of these properties/examples? Are they reasonable? If so, how can we create a measure that suits these intuitions? And if not, how can we create a measure that suits better intuitions/intuitive examples/properties? So far, are my intuitive properties reasonable? If not, could we find the most "intuitive" Folner Sequence of any countable set? What would be the measure and average be? $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Aug 30 '19 at 22:54
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, reopened

Please undelete and reopen this post:

How to show $13\left(x^{2}+1\right)+\sqrt{2\left(x^{4}+1\right)}+62 x-\frac{45\left(x^{2}-1\right)}{\ln x}>0$ for $x\in(0,1)$

Context for the question was added upon request by the asker, which has been lifted to the post.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, reopened

Please undelete and reopen this post: How can one integrate $\int\frac{1}{(x+1)^4(x^2+1)} dx$?

OP wants to calculate this integral. He/she is not asking for a solution to this integral per se but states in the post his/her frustration on partial fraction decomposition (PFD) of the integrand. OP even has attempted to use something else (u-substitution) to solve this problem. Benard's answer addresses the difficulties of PFD without divulging the complete solution to OP.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted, reopened, closed as duplicate, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted

Please consider to undelete this question.

The OP brings some background about the problem and is just trying to find an easy solution. The one provided by me looks quite unknown (as it seems from the comments and the answers) thus I think it can be of future help if the question is undeleted.

$\endgroup$
9
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's good form to disclose that one has an answer on the post oneself. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 15 '19 at 21:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This question is a duplicate of many other questions on MSE. While I don't think that it is worth keeping (it brings nothing new to the table), if it is going to be kept, it should be closed as a duplicate. I left comments indicating a couple of potential dupe targets. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Aug 17 '19 at 15:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ On the contrary I believe it brings something new to the table. My solution is different than any other from all the linked posts. $\endgroup$ – Zacky Aug 19 '19 at 20:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Zacky In that case your answer will stand its ground as an answer to the duplicate target as well, and you might consider relocating it there! Just by posting a new answer, the thread of your choice will be bumped to the front page, meaning that many viewers will see it and be able to vote it. <- This could be my template reply to all the users who are sad about a deletion of a duplicate. They can easily save their work this way! $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 30 '19 at 18:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "Partial fraction without defraction for an integral" What the heck does that mean? Is defraction really a word? Why has no one edited that title to something intelligible? $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Aug 30 '19 at 23:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I think that no one had edited the title into something intelligible because no one actually knows what the asker intended. That is part of the problem with the question (aside from the fact that it is a duplicate). $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Aug 31 '19 at 14:17
  • $\begingroup$ @Zacky Honestly, I think that Jyrki's advice is good advice. Indeed, I think that your answer would be a better fit for one of the other questions, if for no other reason than the current question specifically asks about partial fraction decomposition, while the others don't. Your answer would be a better fit for a different question. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Aug 31 '19 at 14:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson something looks off. You said that it brings nothing new to the table and it's not worth to be kept, you even ranted on how my answer isn't a "pedagogical". Are you sure that you honestly believe that is a good advice? $\endgroup$ – Zacky Sep 1 '19 at 8:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I also wrote in my pre-edit for OP: "Since this is just for your training, here's a more different approach for it. If it doesn't fit for you, I will delete it (it doesn't use any partial fractions)", when OP commented I think I received a positive feedback about it from OP.// Indeed it doesn't answer the exact question, but another answer (which got accepted by OP) shows a way with partial fractions. I only posted my answer after I saw it, and after the comments (from some high-rep users) who encouraged OP to not look for a better way? $\endgroup$ – Zacky Sep 1 '19 at 8:58
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I would like to see this question reopened. It is certainly not a duplicate of the previous question as here a double sum have to be evaluated. A partial answer ("the inner sum") which was considered in a comment as "promising" is in fact not helpful at all.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, Reopened

Please undelete and reopen Proof of $(1 + \delta)^{1/2 + \delta}(1- \delta)^{1/2 - \delta} > 1$ for $0 < \delta \leq 1/2$?. Let it be known that I answered the question. The question should now have sufficient context.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please consider this question Prove that $\gcd\left(n^{a}+1, n^{b}+1\right)$ divides $n^{\gcd(a, b)}+1$ to be reopened. I answered the question. And more context has been given.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You should, perhaps, note that you answered this question, and received a bounty for that answer. Hence you are not a disinterested third party. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 19 '20 at 14:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What's the point of undeleting the post after it is reopened? You have nothing to request. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Jul 19 '20 at 15:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar I didn't undelete it. $\endgroup$ – Shubhrajit Bhattacharya Jul 19 '20 at 15:34
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar I actually rather disagree. A record of the activity should be kept at least for some time. $\endgroup$ – quid Jul 19 '20 at 16:31
  • $\begingroup$ I guess Shubhrajit just deleted another request, @quid (I don't have 10k to see what exacfly happened) $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Jul 24 '20 at 4:18
  • $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar I have deleted my request. Always my requests get downvotes. I answered and invested time for them. Why can't I just request for questions to be reopened which are answered by me? I don't want to make any further requests. I started to hate MSE for many reasons including bad and unfriendly behaviour from users. $\endgroup$ – Shubhrajit Bhattacharya Jul 24 '20 at 5:47
  • $\begingroup$ @ShubhrajitBhattacharya You do get positive net votes for quite a number of your request, and quite a lot of your request resulted in reopening/undeleting, so I don't see why you seem to be upset.... $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Jul 25 '20 at 7:14
  • $\begingroup$ @ShubhrajitBhattacharya While it is fine to request reopening/undeleting of posts that you are involved, we suggest users to explain why actions should be taken. The reason "I have answered the questions/ I have spent time on it" is not a very strong reason. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Jul 25 '20 at 7:17
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I propose to reopen Which Combinations of Roots of Unity are Zero?, which is a perfectly phrased and interesting question of which I have no idea why it had been closed. There was some debate about whether the questioner meant to ask for real or integer linear combinations of the roots of unity, which is now settled by an edit – it’s about integer combinations. (But even the version with real coefficients would be interesting and worthy of this site, in my opinion.)

It would also be nice to hear from the ones who have closed the question or are in favour of leaving it closed as to why this question should be closed. I have not the slightest idea.

$\endgroup$
2
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, Reopened

I would like to request that this thread be undeleted and reopened: "If $\#(S)<\#(\Bbb N)$, then prove that $S$ is finite, without using the Axiom of Choice.." I did not answer the question, but I think the thread is useful for people to learn which argument relies on the Axiom of Choice, and which does not.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am confused why my undelete vote wasn't there. Maybe I forgot to vote myself. What a blunder! I might have forgotten to vote to reopen too. However, I might also have voted to reopen, but the reopen vote might have also expired. $\endgroup$ – Batominovski Jul 29 '20 at 11:53
0
$\begingroup$

Why is the the number of regular payments with a balloon payment n-1?

Again, people who are unfamiliar with actuarial mathematics are taking legitimate questions in this area and closing them as not being about mathematics.

Let me be clear: either remove the actuarial mathematics tag entirely and specifically prohibit this entire topic as being suitable, or stop closing questions that are well-understood by those of us who actually know the material.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Ross Millikan has commented in that post, explaining how they think it is not about Math. Do you care to explain why Ross is wrong? $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Aug 18 '20 at 4:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This seems like the wrong place to talk about how well understood, or not, the actuarial-science tag is -- you should write a question for meta where it'll be seen by more people :) $\endgroup$ – postmortes Aug 18 '20 at 5:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Regardless of one's perspective on actuarial mathematics, it's important to note that the OP doesn't provide the key definition of what they're not understanding here. Providing definitions is a basic step in providing context for questions on MSE and the fact it's missing here is why I voted to close this question. Until that's fixed, I don't think it should be reopened. $\endgroup$ – KReiser Aug 18 '20 at 5:32
  • $\begingroup$ The question has been deleted. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Sep 1 '20 at 22:49
0
$\begingroup$

Locked, Unlocked

Please reopen this thread: Given $n$ integers $p_0, p_1,...,p_{n-1}$, what is the smallest possible degree of a polynomial $p(x)$ such that $p(i) = p_i$?. I answered it (although it is now a community wiki post), but the thread is very much self-answered.

I think the thread is useful. There are many questions of the form: "Given a part of a sequence $a_0,a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_{n-1}$, determine the value of $a_m$ for some integer $m\geq n$." I personally dislike such questions because the given information is not sufficient, but with the added assumption that the sequence is a polynomial sequence (of degree at most $n-1$), then such questions become answerable, and we can use some idea from the thread above to establish answers to such questions.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Interesting to see a moderator joining an edit war... $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Sep 4 '20 at 17:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar That is why I think the moderator's actions were inappropriate (whence the complaint in Math Mods' Office). $\endgroup$ – Batominovski Sep 4 '20 at 17:44
0
$\begingroup$

Closed. Edited. Left closed. Deleted.

I think this post (it was closed!)

Alice Through the Looking-Glass: is there a mathematical description of this infinite regression paradox?

is answerable now and is about mathematics.

I added images and a formal example.

The question is about some properties/abnormal behaviours of functions (/transformations). I want to know if there are known examples, if they are studied, if they are formulated and etc.

I am aware that it's not the best and most usual and most non-controversial question... but I think it has its own good sides!

Maybe someone can help to reformulate it so it won't be connected to Carroll's book? (Although the basic and most general premise is heavily connected)

I want to ask about functions/transformations that can lead to similar abnormal/paradoxical behaviours or results and if there're famous examples or how mathematicians deal with them and etc.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Closed, Deleted

Please consider undeleting and reopening the post (question & answer both): Why integral of $dx$ is not $∫dxdx$.

This is a basic question came to OP's mind on the subject. There are a lot of people who have the same doubt about the fact. It will be very much helpful for those. Also my answer was accepted by OP and also being appreciated by the other members on this site. I think those question and answer are suitable for the site. I strongly recommend to undelete the post.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

vertices on a path received one answer, but the question asker deleted his own question. This is an abuse of the system. Please undelete this question.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, closed

Please undelete Find nontrivial real coefficients of sum as the question asker self-deleted his/her own question after receiving an answer.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Please consider reopening How to intuitively understand the $n$-dimensional cube as the dimension grows large (or suggest a more suitable duplicate target—I was unable to find one). I would like to add an answer that would be inappropriate at either of the suggested duplicates, which are both mostly concerned with visualizing 4-dimensional cubes and not on developing intuition for large dimensional cubes.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Um.... weird situation. While I agree with the OP that the duplicate do not compare the $n$-balls and $n$-cubes, they actually accept an answer that IMO completely ignore this aspect. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Dec 23 '20 at 17:01
  • $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar I don't know why the OP decided to accept the one answer that was given before the question got closed, but they might still be open to reading additional answers. Even if not, future readers with the same question might be interested in other answers. $\endgroup$ – Will Orrick Dec 23 '20 at 20:19
-1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, reopened

I humbly request undeletion and reopening of this question, if you see fit to do so, because

a) reasons for closing should be derived from the question itself and not from speculation about the skills of the asker.

b) the given reasons for closing are incorrect - while the question sails close to an open problem, it asks a different but related question - it asks if the open problem (which relates to a series of polynomials) can be extended to its limit point.

c) the time from entering the reopen queue to deletion was less than two hours, denying any who might have been interested in its reopening the opportunity to declare the same.

d) moreover, I think others will find the question and any prospective answers of interest and value.

$\endgroup$
13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The time from entering the reopen queue to deletion may have been short, but the question had been on hold for five days already. As for the close reasons, I'll note that 2 of the close voters did not use "not math". I think that personnally I would have probably voted to close as unclear what you're asking, because on a first reading I honestly had no idea what you were talking about. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Dec 1 '18 at 12:43
  • $\begingroup$ @ArnaudD. Yes, but the reopen request followed an edit which increased focus on the actual question and removed the motivation for it, when I believe the question's motivation was almost certainly the cause for the down votes and closure in the first place, rather than the question itself which stands alone. $\endgroup$ – samerivertwice Dec 1 '18 at 12:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ By the way, I think the most recent edit on your question (post-deletion) already makes the question more interesting. It only consists of adding a Wikipedia link, but that link already explains some of the context better than your question (for example, I hadn't realized that you were talking about polynomial bijections $\mathbb{N}^k \to\mathbb{N}$, but maybe that's just me). $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Dec 1 '18 at 12:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For what it's worth, the reopen review was completed before the deletion, as one can see here. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Dec 1 '18 at 13:15
  • $\begingroup$ @ArnaudD. good point, although predominantly the same users. Is there a better review link that shows timings etc.? I thought I saw one before but can never re-find it. $\endgroup$ – samerivertwice Dec 1 '18 at 13:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There's the timeline, but I don't know if it is as detailed as you'd want. (By the way, there's another question about how to find it). $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Dec 1 '18 at 13:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Setting aside all other issues, there are some obvious (and, I think, easily correctible) errors in your question's key equation, stating the F-P conjecture: the right hand side has no $y$ in it, and the index of summation $n$ appears nowhere in the expression being summed. I'm pretty sure you want the summation to go from $k=1$ to $n$, not $n=1$ to $k$, with $f_n(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ on the left hand side, not $f_k(y)$. $\endgroup$ – Barry Cipra Dec 1 '18 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ @BarryCipra thank-you. I think I intended $y$ to be the set $\{x_1,x_2,\ldots x_k\}$ and yes, I agree I appear to have exchanged an $n$ with a $k$ but alas no edits are allowed on a deleted post so I can't correct it :( $\endgroup$ – samerivertwice Dec 1 '18 at 18:17
  • $\begingroup$ @RobertFrost That's surprising. In any case, I've just done the correction. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Dec 1 '18 at 18:57
  • $\begingroup$ @ArnaudD. Thanks and you even got the $f_n$ I thought might get missed. $\endgroup$ – samerivertwice Dec 1 '18 at 19:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "timings"? The time of the review is there exactly. As usual, hover over the time stamp to get a resolution to the second. $\endgroup$ – quid Dec 1 '18 at 23:44
  • $\begingroup$ @quid thank-you. That probably covers it although I can only see a deleted post on desktop so I'll have to check later $\endgroup$ – samerivertwice Dec 2 '18 at 4:07
  • $\begingroup$ @ArnaudD. Thank-you for the edit. A reopen vote would be greatly appreciated (only if you think it appropriate). Else the deleters will reverse the undeleters! $\endgroup$ – samerivertwice Dec 3 '18 at 10:39
-1
$\begingroup$

Please undelete https://math.stackexchange.com/q/2192864/290189 because OP has self-deleted his question one minute after receiving an answer from me. This is an abuse of the system.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ OP shouldn't have deleted it, but what a miserable excuse for a question! With all due respect, I don't think you should have answered it, not without first getting OP to bring it up to standards. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson May 24 '19 at 2:47
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The question was deleted one minute after receiving an answer, but this request was posted more than two years later. If the asker deleted the question to cover up the fact that they got help, then they already succeeded. I don't really see a reason to undelete this, because it would just get closed and deleted again. $\endgroup$ – user296602 May 24 '19 at 6:42
-1
$\begingroup$

Please unmark the duplicate of this question. I have clearly said that my question has nothing to do with duplicate one. I am asking totally different thing and the duplicate question's answer does not help me at all. It is also an unique question which follows m previous question.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't believe the relationship between the Questions is quite so simple as one "has nothing to do with" the other. Both involve intersections between two spherical caps, although you might not have visualized your problem in this way. There might still be a further problem in stating the area in terms of how you parameterized the spherical region, I grant, but it would be worth understanding the solution of the proposed duplicate to try restating the area given there in your terms. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jun 6 '19 at 17:11
-1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, closed, deleted, undeleted, redeleted

I nominate Solve the recurrence $\sqrt {x_n} − 5 \sqrt {x _{n−1} }+ 6\sqrt {x_{n−2}} = 0$ for undeletion because OP has self-deleted his post shortly after receiving an answer. That's rude to the answerer.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I agree that the question should not have been deleted by the original asker, and would have voted to undelete had I seen this before the question was undeleted. That being said, it is a pretty low quality question, and would like to now nominate it for closure and (if it is not improved) eventual deletion. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Nov 12 '18 at 23:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson Agreed and updated the status of my answer. $\endgroup$ – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Nov 13 '18 at 1:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is inconceivable this question is undeleted. Even the answer is pretty low-quality. $\endgroup$ – YuiTo Cheng Jun 26 '19 at 4:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I find that revision history really surprising : one (now removed) user voted to undelete and then close the question, OP initially self-deleted the question but 5 days later voted to undelete after the second deletion, and now you've voted to undelete and then redelete the day after. Pardon my French, but WTF? $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Jun 27 '19 at 9:31
1
3 4
5
6 7

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