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 Mod
    Jul 19 '20 at 23:49

189 Answers 189

1
2
3 4 5
7
3
$\begingroup$

Merged

Please Consider undeleting the following question:

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3203711/what-are-the-steps-to-finding-int-01-frac-ln1-x-lnxx-dx

Of course, this one is a strict duplicate of the one for it was closed. However, regarding the fact that the answers to this question at all are quite spread I would like to draw attention to my own answer given here collecting some of the possible ways to evaluate this integral within one post.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Would it make sense to merge the thread with the duplicate target? $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    May 4 '19 at 10:11
  • $\begingroup$ @quid That might a better way than undeleting the question, indeed. I'm ashamed to ask, but what exactly does it mean to merge a thread with another one? $\endgroup$
    – mrtaurho
    May 4 '19 at 10:13
  • $\begingroup$ It means that the answers will be moved to the other thread (and deleted on the original one). The Q can be preserved (like a duplicate) or not. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    May 4 '19 at 10:16
  • $\begingroup$ @quid That sounds pretty good. Shall I do this, at least with my own answer, by myself or do I have to request for this somewhere? $\endgroup$
    – mrtaurho
    May 4 '19 at 10:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That's something only moderators can do. (Of course you could simply repost your answer on the dupe too, but that would not be merge.) I'll just go ahead and do it now. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    May 4 '19 at 10:23
  • $\begingroup$ @quid Thank you for your time! $\endgroup$
    – mrtaurho
    May 4 '19 at 10:24
3
$\begingroup$

Reopened

New user Christophe has made edits which considerably improve this question. Currently, it needs one more reopen vote to remove the hold. Please consider voting to reopen.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, Reopened, Reclosed as a duplicate.

I found this question sufficiently non-trivial.

Given that the series of positive numbers $\sum_n a_n$ converges, can we say anything about the convergence of $\sum_n a_n^{(n-1)/n}$?

So, as a salvage effort I added some preliminary thoughts to it. Do check whether it now is good enough to be undeleted and/or reopened?

I'm not saying it would now be a great question. This is also a way of repeating my old maxim that the interested parties should always try and edit closed/deleted questions they find interesting into shape, and only after that ask others to reconsider.

Caveat: I didn't feel the need to check for duplicates. So it is possible that it should later be closed and redeleted as a dupe. Not entirely unexpectedly Martin Sleziak found no less than three near duplicates: 1, 2 and 3.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I'm happy with the current status (closed as a duplicate). $\endgroup$ Oct 28 '19 at 6:34
3
$\begingroup$

Reopened

This question asks about the existence of a series $f_i$ of complex functions with several properties: there should exist $x_0$ such that $f_i(x_0) = i$; the sum of the series should converge on some open region to a function $f$; the analytic continuation of $f$ should exist at $x_0$.

It has attracted several answers, some quite detailed, but has been closed as being “not about mathematics”.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted.

Please consider undeleting this post: Help with proof of set theory.

The question asks for clarification of some details in a previous answer of mine. (In a perhaps poorly phrased manner, saying that it seemed there was an error and so the answer was meaningless.)

I took the time to ask in comments for the poster to clarify what precisely was confusing. Then I posted an answer with some additional details.

The poster proceeded to delete all their comments and the question, which I think is poor manners. The question is not terrible, and it may be useful to others.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ "Reopened"? Shouldn't that be "Undeleted"? $\endgroup$ Jan 30 '20 at 20:25
  • $\begingroup$ Yes it should. 🙂 $\endgroup$ Jan 30 '20 at 20:35
3
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Consider this question: Find the height of a bar, given the lengths of shadows cast by it and another bar

It is closed as a duplicate of a question that is closed with the missing context reason, with no attempt and only one answer. The question I linked has an attempt and the question and many answers are highly upvoted, yet people are voting to delete it, presumably because it's a duplicate. It will require 10 delete votes.

I think we should reopen this question and close the other question as a duplicate of this one. Afterwards, if people are really so thirsty for deletion, they can delete that one.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, Reopened

Please undelete the following: How many ways can I go from 1 to 10 in the following diagram?

This question has an answer (mine) with more than $50$ votes. The question should stay closed, as it did not follow MSE guidelines, but the highly voted answer is very good.

The question now has more context and pictures.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "How many undelete votes does this question have?" (added in your recent edit). If I count correctly, it took five users to deleted the question, so five votes to undelete should be necessary too. This is in accordance with the description in the FAQ, you have 5+51=56 (questions + top-voted answer), ratio 20:1 gives two additional votes. $\endgroup$ Jul 13 '20 at 12:42
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak Thanks! $\endgroup$ Jul 13 '20 at 12:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Culver I think it would be a good idea to edit the question to improve it yourself, so that it doesn't get deleted again. You could just add something to the question to say why it's interesting. The question is the best part of a year old, so we can safely assume that the OP isn't going to improve it themselves... $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jul 14 '20 at 15:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (Also, for questions like this it makes more sense for the question to contain an explanation of why we should care about it, rather than containing some half-hearted attempted at a solution. I mean, you want this to be kept open for posterity, right? But noone in the future is going to care about the OPs "attempt"!) $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jul 14 '20 at 15:48
3
$\begingroup$

Reopened, Deleted by spam flag, Undeleted

Please consider reopening this question which is asked by a newbie which obviously did not know how to ask a good question. After the closure they had edited to include their efforts, and I have fixed the formatting.

The reopening review task was completed just a while ago.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Somehow the question got flagged as spam. $\endgroup$ Sep 15 '20 at 19:21
  • $\begingroup$ I thought it's automatic deleted (by the script here) @MattSamuel $\endgroup$ Sep 15 '20 at 19:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The history does say it was deleted by RemoveDeadQuestions, however if you look at the text of the post it says it was marked as spam as well. $\endgroup$ Sep 15 '20 at 19:38
  • $\begingroup$ I can't see that @MattSamuel (I have <10k rep, so I guess I might see less information). $\endgroup$ Sep 15 '20 at 19:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The flag is for "spam or rude/abusive" content, but here the only rudeness is the terse initial phrasing in the imperative "solve it". I scarcely think this is abusive. If the subsequent edits are taken into account, the Question is suitable in my opinion, so I'm voting to undelete. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Sep 15 '20 at 20:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Without more upvotes it will just be deleted again. It needs at least a score of $0$ to make it through tonight. $\endgroup$ Sep 15 '20 at 22:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe someone could post an answer, as the question is currently open and not deleted. $\endgroup$ Sep 15 '20 at 23:30
  • $\begingroup$ Still waiting for someone to post an answer, also waiting for OP to correct the typo I pointed out (if it is, in fact, a typo). $\endgroup$ Sep 26 '20 at 1:02
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please, consider reopening this question.

The question was somewhat unclear when first asked, but was pinpointed down in comments. I also edited it providing a figure which helps to readily understand the situation.

The context provided by OP (by means of the "planified" picture) makes the source of confusion clear, and now that the problem itself is also clear, I think it fits the site well.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I request a reopen of Are the corner hypercubera polytopes self-dual?. The question provides a v-definition of an infinite family of polytopes, and asks whether each member of this family is self-dual. (I don't see anything unclear about this question.) Other than being closed for being unclear, I haven't received feedback on this question.

I believe this Q&A provides the first known example of an infinite family of self-dual polytopes that is not a set of k-fold pyramids over a self-dual polytope.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The post reads as a blog post, not a question. It needs to be vastly more concise, and I frankly don't think that MSE is a good site to ask questions like this; you would do better just talking to someone in the field. You got a bit of feedback in your last meta post. $\endgroup$
    – user296602
    Oct 1 '18 at 23:20
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for replying. I agree that a tag pertaining to just a question or two need not exist. As to the question, 1/3 of it is motivation, which I understand to be a requirement of MSE (I would just as soon leave it out). The answer is long because, while conceptually simple, the proof has a lot of tedious parts to it. $\endgroup$
    – Dan Moore
    Oct 2 '18 at 0:35
  • $\begingroup$ I've made my question more concise-it's now about 1160 characters & fits on my small Mac screen. My answer is about 18,000 characters. To analyze why it's so long, I counted the characters in eight distinct parts of the answer. Some parts are long because the thing to be proved requires a lot of words (wishing there was an elegant proof doesn't make it so). $\endgroup$
    – Dan Moore
    Oct 2 '18 at 23:56
  • $\begingroup$ Strictly speaking, the question was closed, not the answer. The Q&A is good because it sets forth the first example (ever in the history of mankind) of an infinite family of self-dual geometric polytopes (one for each dimension d $\ge$ 3) which aren't a set of k-fold pyramids over a self-dual polytope. $\endgroup$
    – Dan Moore
    Oct 3 '18 at 0:00
  • $\begingroup$ I've improved my answer by adding headings, allowing the reader to more easily navigate or skim the answer. $\endgroup$
    – Dan Moore
    Oct 7 '18 at 15:47
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted.

I nominate Is the numerical range of Identity operator convex? for undeletion because the question asker self-deleted her question shortly after receiving an answer from a high-rep user. That's an abuse of the system.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened.

This recent Question asks about a variant of the Secretary Problem which as far as I can tell has not been previously answered here.

I mistakenly proposed to close as a duplicate of the classic Secretary Problem, but this variant treats as equally successful the choice of either the best or the second-best candidate. Please consider adding your vote to reopen to mine.

[NB: I edited the title of the post to clarify that this is not identical to the earlier Question, and I discuss in the comments there what little Math.SE discussion there had been on this variant (without supplying its literature references).]

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I've edited the question to refine the formatting and grammar a bit, and to use more gender neutral language. I don't think that the question is all that great (it is a problem statement question with a largely nonsensical "attempt"), but I agree that it isn't a duplicate question, and it is somewhat better than much of the stuff that gets posted. In any event, the question is now open again. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Nov 27 '18 at 2:27
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

I nominate Is the Balazard-Saias-Yor integral non-positive? for un-deletion and re-opening. Being self-deleted by a deleted user, it has a score of +1 and two stars. The topic adds value to the site and the question asker has put effort in the post.

Currently, only one undelete vote is needed to undelete this question. I hope the two users who starred this question can see their favorite question re-opened.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It should be noted that "stars" do not necessarily indicate that a user finds the question useful or up to the standards of the site. Many users use stars to keep track of questions with which they have interacted, and desire to return to at some point. For example, I sometimes star questions which lack context or otherwise fail to meet the standards of this site. After downvoting, leaving a comment, and/or voting to close, I will star the post so that I can return to it a few days later to see if it has been improved. If it has, I'll retract my downvote and/or close vote. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Feb 4 '19 at 17:02
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'm not saying that this is the case here; I just want to point out that "stars" should not be taken as a sign of quality vis-a-vis undeletion votes. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Feb 4 '19 at 17:03
  • $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson Thx for comments. Noted. $\endgroup$ Feb 5 '19 at 1:27
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted and merged with duplicate

I would like to see the question "Finding sum to infinity" undeleted. The OP says that they "tried using the Taylor series for $e^x$ but couldn’t figure out how to manipulate it to get the above expression", which seems reasonable. Moreover:

  1. The question is a duplicate and is closed as such. It is not standard practice to delete duplicates (see here).
  2. The question itself is on +5 (+6/-1), and one of the answers is on +12.
$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't get the argument. What is the value of keeping that question on the site? $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Feb 15 '19 at 19:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I didn't realiize that "it is standard practice to not delete duplicates." Cite? $\endgroup$ Feb 16 '19 at 4:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I also had entertained to comment on that. What arguably is true is that "it is not standard practice to delete duplicates", which of course is not quite the same. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Feb 16 '19 at 12:14
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry What I meant was "a question should not be deleted simply because it is a duplicate" (so I've edited the post to quid's sentence). This was discussed here. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Feb 18 '19 at 11:28
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted and reopened

Please consider reopening the following question:

Evaluation of definite integrals with exponential integrand in Fourier sine transform

OP reduces the problem of finding Fourier sine transform to something that he/she does not know how to proceed further, which can be clearly justified as an attempt. I don't think we should close such post.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ You ask to reopen, but you write that we shouldn't delete. As you know, closing/reopening and deleting/undeleting are two different things. Presumably, you would like both to undelete and to reopen. May I suggest you edit your post to clarify. $\endgroup$ Apr 27 '19 at 0:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry Myerson: Sure. Edited. Thanks for mentioning that. $\endgroup$
    – user9464
    Apr 27 '19 at 1:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jack I noticed that after the comment by Gerry you edited the question to only request reopening, but I find this slightly confusing. Shouldn't the post request undeletion instead, since the question is currently deleted? $\endgroup$
    – user279515
    Apr 30 '19 at 15:29
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

I nominate Factorising the ideal $(14)$ in $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-10})$ into a product of prime ideals. for undeletion since the question asker has self-deleted his/her own question after receiving an answer. This is unfair the answerer who spent time and effort writing the answer, which deserves evaluation from the community.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened, closed again as duplicate

I nominate reopening Non-negative integer solution for $ax + by = c$. The OP updated the question with what I consider to be sufficient context after the first close vote, but before the final one. As I thought the updated text then made it an appropriate question, I provided an answer. After I discovered it was closed, I flagged it for reopening, but this was declined. FYI, the full timeline is here. Please check this question to see if it should be reopened. Thanks.

Update: As explained in the comments, the question is really a duplicate. It's now closed again for what I consider an appropriate reason, i.e., as a duplicate.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/questions/490602/… and probably several others. If it's reopened, it should immediately be closed as a duplicate. $\endgroup$ May 28 '19 at 6:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I appreciate your feedback. Since it's a duplicate, I don't have any problem with closing it as such (if it's first reopened), and will even vote to do so. $\endgroup$ May 28 '19 at 6:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I just gave the last vote to reopen the question. To follow through on what I stated above, I then tried to vote to close as a duplicate. However, because I gave a vote to close on April 18 and then retracted it (due to the OP giving more context so I thought it shouldn't close), the system won't let me vote to close it again, even though it's gone through a close/reopen cycle. As such, perhaps you may wish to start the process of closing it now as a duplicate. Thanks. $\endgroup$ Jun 1 '19 at 3:09
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please consider reopening Does non-uniqueness of solution to 1st order ODE implies the existence of infinitely many solutions?.

This is an interesting question about a not so famous result in ODE. The answers points to the correct reference. I've edited the question to include more context.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree it's an interesting question, and the updated text now has enough context, so I initiated reopening it. $\endgroup$ Jun 18 '19 at 16:36
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnOmielan, if you care, please consider also editing the answer there (to rollback to edit 1). Now that the post is reopened, there is no need for that comment. I tried to edit myself, but the suggested edit got rejected $\endgroup$ Jun 19 '19 at 19:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree the comment there regarding it being closed is no longer pertinent, so I did rollback of the edit. $\endgroup$ Jun 19 '19 at 19:26
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted (and edited the duplicate target)


Please undelete this post:

Three coins are tossed. If one of them shows a tails, what is the probability that all three coins show tails?

This question was marked as a duplicate to another question (created 2014) that was closed and deleted (2018).

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It seems it took 9 votes to delete this question. I suppose that's because it had 30 upvotes? Anyway, currently it has 7 undelete votes. Does it need 9 to undelete? $\endgroup$ Jul 5 '19 at 5:52
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, reopened

Please consider undeleting the post:

Reference Request: Proof of H. Steinhaus' Lattice-Point Theorem, created on Mar 11 '17.

This question has two good answers.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Why don't you people leave these old questions alone? They're really not doing anyone any harm by being left on the site. $\endgroup$ Jul 2 '19 at 3:23
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson "They're really not doing anyone any harm by being left on the site. " Got debunked numerous times. It's almost hard to believe that you just keep repeating it. To reiterate, not only does precedent get invoked in discussion, users also tend to go by the question they see when deciding how to ask. Of course one can consider this as not enough reason to delete them, but to simply claim "not doing anyone any harm" is just false. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Jul 9 '19 at 13:48
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ On the post generally, at least one might have restored the earlier more complete version. The current version is completely unclear as question, there is arguably more than one result that could be meant. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Jul 9 '19 at 13:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ And one more thing @GerryMyerson to refer to a question from 2017 under "these old questions" is rather odd. Discussions about quality of questions were well advanced by then. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Jul 9 '19 at 14:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ OK, @quid, I've rolled back to a more complete version. $\endgroup$ Jul 10 '19 at 0:17
2
$\begingroup$

I nominate to undelete Bijection from a Variety to Itself, Necessarily an Isomorphism?. This question has been deleted by a moderator, so I guess it can only be undeleted by a moderator, too?

The question is interesting and has no apparent issues, as far as I can tell. It is well-formatted and well-formulated. It is no mere problem statement and precisely answerable.

The question has been stated yesterday and when I came back today to see if it got any answers, it was gone.

I honestly can’t tell why it should have been deleted. Although it seems that the questioner has been deleted, so maybe that has something to do with it? (If Asaf Karagila is reading this, would you care to explain your deletion?)

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "If Asaf Karagila is reading this...." Never fear, Asaf is always reading this. It is odd that he deleted the post at 5:25:59, then undeleted it three seconds later, then redeleted it four seconds after that. $\endgroup$ Jul 23 '19 at 13:42
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ While we [the moderators] debate the whole thing, you can usually assume that if a moderator deleted a question then there is something deeper going on and some information that you might not be privy to. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Jul 23 '19 at 15:30
  • $\begingroup$ (Even more so if you notice that the OP has become an ex-account, by the way.) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Jul 23 '19 at 15:31
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The user who posted the question has also been deleted, which I'm guessing is related to why the question was deleted. Nevertheless I'm disappointed by the deletion of the question--regardless of what was going on with the asker, it is an interesting and nontrivial question. $\endgroup$ Jul 23 '19 at 15:33
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Eric: I will just comment that we have seen before that holding the quality of a question as a sacred candle which nothing else should extinguish is not a good standard for a functioning community. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Jul 23 '19 at 15:45
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila In case you decide to leave the question deleted, please let me know, so I can consider to pose it myself instead. It would also be interesting to hear the reasons if you can disclose that. (Man, this starts to sound like some serious FBI shit or something.) $\endgroup$
    – k.stm
    Jul 23 '19 at 16:00
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Prove: there exists 3 sets: $A, B, C \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ such that: $A\cap B\cap C =\emptyset$ and $|A|=|B|=|C|=\aleph_0$?

Please consider reopening my question as I've edited it in order to explain the full context of it.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The current status is only to be added after a change occurred. In any case it should always be the current status of the post not the requested action. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Aug 15 '19 at 13:19
  • $\begingroup$ I understand. thank you for the help $\endgroup$
    – Jneven
    Aug 15 '19 at 13:20
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, closed, deleted, undeleted, deleted

I think there's a consensus that we undelete questions when they are deleted by the user who posted them after someone else has posted an answer (see, for example, the comment here. In accordance with that consensus, I propose undeletion of this post:

Solutions to $\sum_{j=0}^k r_j^2+3r_j+2\equiv 0 \mod p $

Now I'll own up that I'm the one who posted the answer to the question. My answer was exceedingly terse, and came out of a review with the note, "This does not provide an answer to the question (and so on, and so forth)." But it does provide an answer. The question was to prove or disprove that there are no solutions to a certain equation (congruence, actually, but never mind), and my answer gave a solution.

$\endgroup$
16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Is this actually a consensus? $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Jul 23 '18 at 12:30
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @Did, if you look at the previous edition of this thread, you'll find that in April-May, GNU Supporter posted 4 requests for undeletion, all on the grounds that OP had deleted a question after receiving an answer, and all four questions were undeleted. $\endgroup$ Jul 23 '18 at 12:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes, and? $ $ $ $ $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Jul 23 '18 at 18:11
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @Did For what it's worth, I have the same impression about the consensus. Preventing an asker from covering up their own question seems to be something the community values, even if it's closed later. $\endgroup$
    – user296602
    Jul 23 '18 at 18:35
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers (and also Gerry Myerson): I think that there is a moderate consensus that it is bad form to ask a question, get an answer, then delete the question. It belies an ignorance of the functioning of the site (i.e. questions are supposed to be helpful to everyone, not just the one person asking the question). However, in this particular case, the question is of pretty low quality, and should be closed and deleted (in my opinion). It seems like a waste of resources to have opened it back up again... $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Jul 23 '18 at 19:00
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ For what it's worth, I have expanded my answer to the question on main. $\endgroup$ Jul 24 '18 at 0:34
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "For what it's worth, I have expanded my answer to the question on main." On this topic, my understanding is that the consensus is that a good (or even great) answer is not really enough to justify keeping a poor question around. This and this are relevant. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Jul 24 '18 at 13:27
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Xander, the highest-voted answers and comments on your first link hardly support your understanding. The second link, even there there is considerable support for not deleting questions with good answers. I'm not convinced there is, was, or ever will be a consensus on this issue. A majority, maybe, but no consensus. $\endgroup$ Jul 24 '18 at 21:31
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I think you and I must be reading very different answers. In answer to the question of whether bad questions with good answers should be preserved, my reading of the top three answers ((1), (2), (3)) suggest that it might be worth protecting a poor question if it hosts an excellent answer. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Jul 24 '18 at 22:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ On the question of upvoting poor questions with good answers, the top voted answer is this one, essentially "I don't do it, but there could be an argument in favor of it." The second answer is similar, with the idea being that a good answer should be preserved if it might be helpful for others in the future. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Jul 24 '18 at 22:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In both cases, it seems clear to me that the consensus is that it might be reasonable to preserve a poor question if it attracted a really good, useful, generally helpful answer. Again, a good answer (or possibly even a great answer) is not, by itself, enough to preserve a poor question. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Jul 24 '18 at 22:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Finally, I note that I made my initial comment in response to your assertion that you have improved your answer. Are you further asserting that the improvements created something that is of such lasting value that it will be beneficial beyond asking that poor question? Despite the fact that this question and answer have been the topic of discussion here for a couple of days, your answer has not attracted any upvotes... $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Jul 24 '18 at 22:59
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Xander, I'm not in it for the upvotes. I objected to a user posting a question and then deleting it when it got an answer, as I agree with a moderator that such an action is an abuse of the site. Once the question was undeleted, I took the opportunity to improve my answer, in response to a comment from another user. What's wrong with that? I'm not asserting anything about the lasting value of the question or the answer, other than the answer being fuller now than it was. The answer may help someone coming along who is interested in sums of two squares modulo a prime. Fire away. $\endgroup$ Jul 24 '18 at 23:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson: it isn't pleasant to see one's own answer deleted, but in this case the question is clearly not up to many users' standards, so I think it is not surprising to see it deleted. At this point, the question is no longer deleted by the OP, but by several other users. $\endgroup$ Aug 5 '18 at 21:06
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Carl, it isn't pleasant to see any answer with nonzero mathematical content deleted. More to the point, I would not have put the question up for undeletion, had it been deleted by votes of users. My objection was to OP abusing the site by deleting the question after getting an answer. I thought that was clear. $\endgroup$ Aug 5 '18 at 23:09
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please consider reopening Minimal surfaces under conformal parametrizations - proof verification

It appears to have been closed after the user vandalised their question (rolling back the question would seem like the better approach, which I've done) and appears to have plenty of context and be a reasonable question asking for help.

$\endgroup$
0
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Could we please reopen: How might I define a parabola in vertex form, such that…

The OP has made an effort to improve their question. They have clarified the question by including the vertex form of a parabola for future reference, and have also added MathJax to the question. I have also cleaned up the tags to better reflect the question ('linear-algebra' was not appropriate).

The question is perfectly clear, and the OP has given the background to their own question which makes it perfectly answerable.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have voted to reopen, but I note that the question already has an accepted answer. $\endgroup$ Oct 12 '19 at 6:47
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

The following answer was deleted:

https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1409573/10513

and I believe it should be undeleted.

The question is rather old (2013). The context of the question is that they are reading a research article which states a result, and the question is asking for a proof of this. Each of the other answers gives a citation rather than a proof. This specific answer is the same (citation, no proof), but the citation given is a modern, standard text and it makes sense for this book to be mentioned in some answer.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

Please consider undeleting this question.

It is a nice instructive problem about a topic that deserves to be much better known and often proves troubling for students - namely Kronecker's ideas relating the factorization of polynomials to the factorization of their values.

Because these ideas are so little known I can understand why the author had trouble getting started (not to mention a red herring assumption added about the polynomial degree). It's such a nice problem that I even added an answer a year later when I stumbled upon it in order to explain how it relates to the general ideas, hoping that I could link to it when similar problems are posted. Alas, that is not possible given the deletion.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please consider voting to reopen this question:

Peak response of second order system with rectangular pulse input

The OP has improved it a lot.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please reopen

The question is clear and natural to ask. It asks whether the characteristic polynomial of a matrix is a polynomial or a polynomial function. One common definition makes it look like the latter.

(Note that quantum groups are not groups and trigonometric polynomials are not polynomial in the usual sense).

$\endgroup$
4
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It's considered good manners to indicate, when requesting a reopening, that you've provided an answer to the question yourself :) $\endgroup$
    – postmortes
    Apr 21 '20 at 10:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @postmortes, thanks for the info, i didn't know it was relevant. $\endgroup$
    – Alexey
    Apr 21 '20 at 12:31
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Generally if there's a benefit to someone personally by having the question-status changed (typically, they'll gain reputation from it) people here like that stated up front :) $\endgroup$
    – postmortes
    Apr 21 '20 at 12:34
  • $\begingroup$ @postmortes, i was ignorant of the personal benefit... I didn't know or forgot that answers to closed questions cannot be upvoted. $\endgroup$
    – Alexey
    Apr 21 '20 at 19:14
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

The question $\sum_{n=1}^{p-1}{\frac{1}{n}} = \frac{A_p}{B_p}$ What is $A_p$ (mod $p^2$) where $\frac{A_p}{B_p}$ is a reduced form fraction? is closed as a duplicate of Proof of Wolstenholme's theorem, but perhaps this was a bit hasty. Quoting from the OP's update:

It's been suggested that Wolstenholme's theorem can be used to finish the proof. The connection between the problem here and Wolstenholme's theorem is interesting so I will try to study Wolstenholme's theorem. However, it doesn't seem like a likely path to have taken from where I'm at in my understanding. I'm also skeptical Silverman had intended for the audience of his book to discover Wolstenholme's theorem as a lemma to proving that $𝐴_p$ is $0$ (mod $p^2$).

Based on this, I have added the tag to it.

Can the question be reopened?

$\endgroup$
1
2
3 4 5
7

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