35
$\begingroup$

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 was put on-hold pushes the question into reopen review queue, if the edit was done within 5 days of closure. So does a reopen vote. (If the review has already been finished, it is shown on the timeline of the question.) 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 once the request resulted in some action the information Reopened or Undeleted at the start. (If it the action is undone, add this too, like Reopened, reclosed.)

  • Do not only post a request, like "request reopening of ". 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 in a away that takes the feedback the post received into account in a positive way 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 CRUDE is a reasonable place for such requests. The same guidelines apply there.

Earlier versions of this thread that served as a model:

$\endgroup$

135 Answers 135

1 2 3 4 5
10
$\begingroup$

Reopened

This is on the chopping block again: Is zero a prime number? The question was the subject of this meta discussion: How to prevent the loss of excellent answers to poor questions. which resulted in reopening.

(Disclosure, I have a solution on the question. I feel the question and solutions are worth fighting for, in this case.)

The reason this time for closure is "too broad", but it is far from obvious that this objection is valid. The OP asks three complete and answerable questions, two of which have answers elsewhere on the site. The remaining question became the focus of some of the answers, and there does not appear to duplicate with comparable content.

So for all intents and purposes, there is a single, clear question that seems rather likely for a layperson to ask, and there are good answers. There is nothing about the breadth of the question which inhibits solutions, as can be seen.

Furthermore, on the holistic side, after so many upvotes on the question and its solutions, and approaching now 30000 views, it seems that the post IS manifestly useful. So, I request your votes to re-open this.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I agree that this rather should not be closed, especially after the improvement of the post. (Yes, the question still has some shortcomings, but I feel it is "good enough".) I tangentially got involved last time; but stopped short of taking action. I reopened it now. (This is less of a so-called unilateral action as it was 'nearly' reopened two weeks ago. ) $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Jul 16 '18 at 17:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid Thank you for your attention to this! $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Jul 16 '18 at 18:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid I'm curious: my understanding was that closed questions were still viewable and not eligible for automatic deletion (assuming that the question is upvoted and has upvoted answers). Why is it inappropriate to close the question and leave a message to the effect of "This question has been preserved because of a good answer. It is never-the-less not a high quality question." For example, the lock message on this question. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 16 '18 at 19:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson 'Why is it inappropriate to close the question and leave a message to the effect of "This question has been preserved because of a good answer. It is never-the-less not a high quality question.' Why do you use the indicative here? No one did that, as far as I know. In any case not recently. The question was reopened after a substantive edit, and then reclosed without comment, as 'too broad'. It also had a delete vote. Maybe more to the point, I would not consider it as inappropriate. But frankly given the edit I don't consider the question as all that bad. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Jul 16 '18 at 20:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sure, it is a bit of a laundry list, and the last question is a bit strange, but in it's naive way even this seems like a genuine question. But it is also not unreasonably broad. Would it be asked now, I'd recommend to split it up, maybe. But this is not easy to fix now, and maybe not that important either. Maybe the combination of question even can be seen as hinting at the level at which the questions is asked. To only ask "is zero a number" might be ill-posed or underdefined, but in context I think it works. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Jul 16 '18 at 21:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Then there is also a community-aspect. Somebody actually put some non-trivial effort into improving this question, and the result is not that bad. If even this is not enough, at some point the line of argument that users should improve post they care about loses credibility, which leads to less improvements. @XanderHenderson $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Jul 16 '18 at 21:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid I apologize---my original comment was poorly phrased, and likely not really related to this reopen request. A better phrasing might have been "In cases where there are really good answers to questions of marginal merit, (1) don't those answers automatically get preserved even if the question is closed? and (2) can such answers be protected? Since you seemed kind of ambivalent with respect to reopening (which I see now was an over-interpretation on my part), I was asking about an alternative. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 16 '18 at 23:38
  • $\begingroup$ In any event, thank you for the feedback. I honestly do value it. :) $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 16 '18 at 23:39
8
$\begingroup$

Reopened, Put on hold, deleted, undeleted, deleted, re-undeleted, re-deleted, undeleted again, deleted again, locked, unlocked and reopened

Please consider reopening What digits is the "number" $\infty$ composed of?. This question was closed as "not about mathematics". Obviously, this question is based on some misconceptions of what infinity is, but they are perfectly natural misconceptions for a layman and that hardly makes the question "not about mathematics". The question has a nice answer which clarifies the misconceptions and is a valuable addition to the site.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I agree. Voted to reopen. $\endgroup$ – Brahadeesh Nov 13 '18 at 8:28
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I don't think having that question around helps us in building a useful math Wiki, which is what the founder of the site had in mind. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Nov 22 '18 at 10:26
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Questions like this have really interesting and revealing answers. I'm thinking about padic numbers and infinitely long strings of digits depending on the base, but I feel like I'm denied my reopen vote by the vigilantes who co-ordinate their fast deletion vote, so minimally many users have the power to reinstate it. $\endgroup$ – samerivertwice Dec 1 '18 at 21:39
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I don't think the question is particularly bad, and not worth deleting. It addresses some common, layman misconceptions, and I don't think that is such a bad thing. (Maths suffers from a poor understanding at all levels of society - let us do what we can to help!) Also, the question is 4 years old. I favour keeping open older questions rather than judging them by todays standards. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jan 30 at 19:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question is currently undeleted but closed. The questioner seems aware that "infinity" might not actually be a number in the usual sense, but so far there's no answer explicitly saying how it differs from numbers. I would like it reopened to allow someone to post one. $\endgroup$ – timtfj Feb 5 at 12:32
  • $\begingroup$ @timtfj: It is deleted again. Some discussion regarding the recent deletion can be found in the CRUDE chatroom. $\endgroup$ – user 170039 Feb 5 at 15:32
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @JyrkiLahtonen I disagree that the question is without use. I think a plausible-yet-naïve-question like this one has a lot of utility to resolve a misconception that others are probably going to have. I can't say I like this particular question, but I can say that I think it's dumb in this case to work so hard to delete it. (It seems to me that a useful wiki would want mechanisms to resolve misconceptions, anyway. Full disclosure: I don't really buy into math.se-as-a-wiki.) $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Feb 6 at 14:57
8
$\begingroup$

Closed, re-opened

Solve for $x^2 + 7x +1 = 3n(x^2 + x +1), n \in \Bbb{Z}$ My this question was put on hold as off-topic because it lacks context. It also gives a link to how I can add context. The link gave the following points

  1. Include your work My response - I answered that question which I asked. I got a few hints from the comments which helped me. Should I give a summary of my solution it the question?
  2. Motivation for question-
    My response - I said in the details of the question that the original problem was a trigonometric equation which I solved but was stuck there.
  3. Where did the problem come from? My response- it came from a book which is suppose to help me in my College entrance exam. But in this context it is really irrelevant and rather obvious.
  4. give your background My response- I did give my background. I am a high school student who is self studying for college entrance exam.
  5. reference My response- None exist.

I am not critising the one(many) who put my question on hold because nobody have to answer my question as this site is run by volunteers. I am just curious. How can I improve my question?

$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

Reopened

This meta question has been closed as a duplicate:

Can we please STOP closing and deleting old posts with answers?

However, it is not a duplicate. The older question is about deleting questions with answers, which is a more general question. (Indeed, it starts with the phrase "A few deays ago I posted an answer...") The newer question is about a special case, and which deserves a separate discussion. In particular, the newer question states [emphasis not mine!]:

Recently...quite a few old questions with good answers are being closed and deleted...I do not see any merit for closing such old questions: who the heck do we really expect to come back and "provide additional context" for a question that was asked two or even six years ago?

Of course, you may believe that this question is not worthy of a separate discussion. That's fine, but I believe the correct way of expressing this opinion is the answer the question saying so, and linking back to the older question.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, it would help if the poster(s) of new meta discussions would take earlier ones into account more systematically. But, yeah, I'll reopen it. If people want to discuss again, that's fine to a point. . $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Apr 29 at 8:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid My point is that the word again is not relevant. Its an essentially new discussion, not covered in the older post. Do you not agree? (It would be nice to clarify the reopening reason first, for posterity's sake.) $\endgroup$ – user1729 Apr 29 at 8:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, I'll leave a comment. The issue with these things is that even if the question is technically different, the discussion is often not focused enough. I know that you noted that with the other answer there. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Apr 29 at 8:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid Thanks. Incidentally, is it possible to delete the other answer, the one I commented on? (Or does that take moderation too far?! I flagged it as "not an answer" a wee while ago.) $\endgroup$ – user1729 Apr 29 at 8:52
  • $\begingroup$ Well, depends who you ask. I prefer not to delete it, but you could request it in aa comment. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Apr 29 at 8:55
8
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, reopened, closed, reopened

Minimum Elementary row/column transformations to find Inverse of given Matric

This question was definitely not up to site standards, but it had a couple of really cool answers, one that I had awarded a bounty to. I think it's worth undeleting for the answers alone.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If the question is "definitely not up to site standards," then it really shouldn't be on the site. If you could edit it to bring its quality up, then that would be nice... but as it stands, I really oppose the undeletion or reopening of this. $\endgroup$ – user296602 May 17 at 4:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers That's why it probably should be closed, so it can be improved by the asker. I could edit it, but I don't want to hijack the asker's question any more than I have. I think it should not be deleted because it has illicited some interesting, unduplicated mathematical content that is, IMHO, worthy of the bounty awarded. $\endgroup$ – Theo Bendit May 17 at 4:06
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The asker had 28 days to improve the question before its closure, and another 5 before its deletion - they chose not to. Do you expect that to change if the question is undeleted? $\endgroup$ – user296602 May 17 at 4:46
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers no obviously no, Theo is not expecting the question to be improved but to show to the rest of the community the couple of really cool answers the 'bad' question has. $\endgroup$ – elli saba May 17 at 4:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers I don't, no. I don't have any reasonable expectation the question to ever be re-opened. But in the interest of generating and collecting interesting mathematical content, I think it's worth keeping the question around. Are you saying I should edit it, replacing the asker's wording with my own, because the asker has abandoned it? $\endgroup$ – Theo Bendit May 17 at 4:55
  • $\begingroup$ My opinion, Theo, is that if you can edit the question to bring it to where it can be undeleted, reopened, and stay open, then more power to you. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson May 17 at 7:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Generally, it's not clear that the asker abandoned it. Anyway what I'd propose is that yes you edit it to something more readily comprehensible and detailed. I don't think there is a need to overdo this. For example, spell out the method the asker refers to, and rewrite the question so that no words are missing. Leave a friendly comment to OP saying that you found the question interesting and therefor fleshed it out a bit. If there is some problem with this approach, you can always ask your own version of the question and then ask for a merge, which would transfer the answers. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ May 17 at 13:05
  • $\begingroup$ @quid I might do the latter. I hijacked the asker's question to have a subtly different focus anyway. Once I've asked it, do I just flag a moderator's attention and request a merge? $\endgroup$ – Theo Bendit May 17 at 13:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Yes, a flag for mods is the way to go. However it'd be good to wait until the discussion has settled as once we merged it's near impossible to go back. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ May 17 at 13:09
7
$\begingroup$

Reopened

The OP added an attempt to Determine the number of ordered triple $(x, y, z)$ of integer numbers (negatives and positives) satisfying $|x| + |y| + |z| \le 6$ in a comment to an answer while there was still only one close vote. I have moved that attempt to the question. I think that the question now meets the criteria for context.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Doesn't the question now contain a complete solution to the problem? which makes it a pretty peculiar question? $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Mar 28 at 21:53
  • $\begingroup$ It gives context, which was why the question was closed. It doesn't really matter to me since I've already answered the question. Questions are not closed when the OP answers them, so I thought this one shouln't be closed for lack of context. Other answers might provide different insights. $\endgroup$ – robjohn♦ Mar 28 at 23:29
7
$\begingroup$

Reopened

This question I asked was closed for lacking context. After context was added, the hold was never lifted, and eventually was closed.

$X,Y$ not homeomorphic if $X\backslash x$ is disconnected for all $x\in X$ but $Y\backslash y$ is connected for some $y\in Y$

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

Reopened, closed, reopened

I just came across this question: Derivative of Square Root Visual after failing a reopen review audit and I'm wondering why it's still closed: unclear what you're asking. I agree that the MathJax formatting isn't the best, but it is still readable.

The OP has actually shown what they've tried, and what they didn't get, so the reason for closure is beyond my understanding. I thus request to reopen the question.

I have now edited the question to make it look neater.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Well it is definitely unclear what they are asking... One has to take roughly 10 mins to watch the youtube videos to see what they are trying to say (watching parts of 2:25 and 12:48 don't quite work, at least to me). $\endgroup$ – user99914 Jul 17 '18 at 10:32
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnMa I think they meant 3:25, as it looks much more relevant? $\endgroup$ – TheSimpliFire Jul 17 '18 at 10:43
  • $\begingroup$ They start the $x^2$ example at 2:35, and then to power rule (up to 10:30). Then they switch to $1/x$ (it seems this is the more relevant one). $\endgroup$ – user99914 Jul 17 '18 at 10:50
  • $\begingroup$ This question is now reclosed as "off-topic". $\endgroup$ – Brahadeesh Apr 12 at 23:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the update @Brahadeesh. It's now reopened. $\endgroup$ – TheSimpliFire Apr 13 at 9:33
7
$\begingroup$

Closed, re-opened

Please consider reopening What is wrong with this solution of find the least value of $ \sec^6 x +\csc^6 x + \sec^6 x\csc^6 x$.

  • This question is closed as a duplicate of this previous question by the same OP: Find the least value of $ \sec^6 x +\csc^6 x + \sec^6 x\csc^6 x$ but the two questions are different. The closed question asks why a particular method of solution does not work, which is very different from the duplicate target.

  • Perhaps relevant: the OP has also posted this question on Meta asking about the site policies on marking posts as duplicates (in general, and not pertaining to the reopening of this specific post).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Also, OP has indicated that he/she no longer cares about the question, and in particular is not seeking reopening. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 19 at 22:34
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson True, but the post itself belongs to the community and I feel it is worth reopening, hence the request. $\endgroup$ – Brahadeesh Apr 20 at 0:53
7
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, redeleted，re-undeleted and locked (but for how long?)

About the Continuum Hypothesis asks a reasonable question that has been answered many times before. It was properly closed as a duplicate.

But it was then deleted, even though it had six upvoted answers with scores from 3 to 13. I think this was unnecessary and counterproductive.

I'd like to see it undeleted.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "I think this was unnecessary and counterproductive." I don't see why it was counterproductive. Could you please elaborate? What I see is that there is quite questionable content in the question-post and the thread does not add anything that is not on the site elsewhere. Thus it is good that it is deleted. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ May 17 at 20:11
  • $\begingroup$ @quid is it that because are we running out of space in the site? :P $\endgroup$ – elli saba May 17 at 23:02
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Isa in a sense of memory, of course not, and deletion does not change anything. In the sense of giving space to good content over not so good one, in a way yes. We should get rid of not so good stuff so that better stuff gets more visibility. For the specific questions, there are just odd things in the question: "OK found out about Aleph numbers - so it isn't based on reality, but on some imaginary stuff. That's fine by me, my reality says integers < rational < real, but to each their own ..." Why should we disseminate this? $\endgroup$ – quid♦ May 18 at 1:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid: Exactly, and that's not the only comment of this cranky sort by the asker, slashmais, who for example commented on hdhondt's answer saying "I think however that there is a major flaw in this reasoning and that I can demonstrate why the flaw occurs as well as how to resolve it, but it would be inappropriate for this site (elicit a discussion) - I would appreciate if you (or anyone else) can point me to a forum meant for such discussion.". $\endgroup$ – user21820 May 19 at 10:09
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think the productive way forward is for any answerer, who thinks that his/her answer hasn't been expressed clearly enough on the (very excellent) earlier question by Steve314, to add an answer to that thread instead. $\endgroup$ – user21820 May 19 at 10:10
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ In my opinion, the answer of mdp to the deleted question is so pedagogically excellent - better than any answer I've read so far on the other duplicates - that I can't understand the argument that its removal is good for the site. Yes, mdp (if she/he sees this) could cut-and past her/his answer to one of the other questions, but it would lose all its up votes, and therefore its visibility. Future readers would therefore be less likely to benefit from it. $\endgroup$ – Will Orrick May 19 at 15:58
7
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, and closed as off-topic, re-deleted, undeleted (after editing)

Please consider undeleting the following post: What is the area of the shaded region.

Considering the high quality of several answers to the question, I do not think we should delete the post.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I edited the question Variable in upper bound of sum when it had 4 votes to close, and I also posted a rather detailed answer (which the OP accepted). It got "put on hold as unclear what you're asking" even though I think it's now quite clear and on-topic. Can the question be re-opened?

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I would like to see the question "What is $\nabla X$ in Riemannian geometry?" re-opened. (I see from the timeline that the reopen queue has finished. In hindsight, I should have edited the title when I made the reopen vote.)

It appears it was marked as a duplicate of Gradient of a vector field?, seemingly because the short version of the question (and the old title, "What is $\nabla X$?") is very similar. But I would say that the rest of the question and the context (including tags) make it a question that necessitates an answer that would be inappropriate on the other question. "Gradient of a vector field?" has a tag and context of multivariable calculus, not Riemannian geometry.

Since "What is $\nabla X$ in Riemannian geometry?" doesn't yet have an accepted answer, I would like it re-opened so others can contribute.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please reopen this this question. One user @lulu stated the question was clear but it is still closed.

If the question is unclear, state why?

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

Reopened, then closed as off topic, deleted

This question (does the existence of an lcm in a commutative ring imply the existence of the gcd of the two elements) was closed as a duplicate, pointing to this one (which shows inter alia that the existence of an lcm in a domain implies the existence of a gcd). In fact, I had done the same thing yesterday.

However, this is not a real duplicate. The question here is about rings, whereas the alleged duplicate is about domains. The proof there does not easily translate: for example, the first step of the proof in the question pointed to is to take $m=\mathrm{lcm}(a,b)$, let $s$ be such that $ms=ab$, write $m=ar$ and $m=bt$, and then claim that $s=\gcd(a,b)$. The first step is to show $s$ divides $a$, which it does by showing that $(ab/m)*(m/b)=a$. This is equivalent to saying that $st=a$; but I do not see how to conclude this in a ring (in a domain, multiplying through by $b$ and then cancelling will do it, but how do you do it here?).

As I had already closed it, and then re-opened, I can no longer vote to re-open on the page.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Were it me, I would have voted to close the question for lack of context. There is zero context. Where did the question come from? What is the background of the asker? Why should anyone care about that question. It really isn't a very good question, and it probably should be closed. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Sep 4 '18 at 3:48
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson: That's valid, but the problem right now is that it points to a question claiming that it provides an answer when it does not. $\endgroup$ – Arturo Magidin Sep 4 '18 at 3:53
6
$\begingroup$

Closed, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted, reopened, closed, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted, reopened

This is being deleted repeatedly by the same people even though it has a great answer. There are several votes to reopen. I think it should be reopened because of the answer.

Cevians $AD$, $BE$, $CF$ are concurrent, as are cevians $DP$, $EQ$, $FR$; show that $AP$, $BQ$, $CR$ are concurrent

$\endgroup$
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ By my standards the Question has sufficient context in respect of the OP's remark (in the original body of the Question) that we should try to apply Ceva's Theorem. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jan 12 at 19:40
6
$\begingroup$

This answer from 7 months ago was apparently deleted by Community as spam or offensive yesterday. I don't see how it could be offensive, and such an answer to a question tagged is surely not spam. Why would someone flag this answer?

And in any case, it's certainly not a great example for a review audit...

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I failed a similar review audit today... $\endgroup$ – YuiTo Cheng Apr 25 at 16:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Same answerer, posted the day after, deleted more or less at the same time with a link to the same site and in both cases the post is identical to the linked review... It's weirder than I thought. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Apr 25 at 16:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think only moderators can undelete a post deleted by Community, right? (it's even locked in this case) $\endgroup$ – YuiTo Cheng Apr 25 at 16:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ According to this answer and the linked Meta answer, this is indeed the case for posts deleted as spam (in fact they are locked) but not the others. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Apr 25 at 16:36
  • $\begingroup$ Are spam flags handled by Community? $\endgroup$ – YuiTo Cheng Apr 25 at 16:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Again?! (notice the answerer's account has been deleted, which still exists yesterday) $\endgroup$ – YuiTo Cheng Apr 26 at 2:08
  • $\begingroup$ There is also this one, though I don't know if it has been used as an audit. The same user also has a deleted answer on MO apparently, though I don't have the rep to see it. I understand the deletions a bit more now... $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Apr 26 at 5:49
  • $\begingroup$ I've added a post about these audits in this thread. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Apr 26 at 6:01
5
$\begingroup$

Reopened

The question A Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic was rightfully quickly closed as unclear, but the asker has since edited to clarify what they meant and what specific difficulty they had adapting the standard proofs to get what they want. It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable question which is mostly clear (though a constraint like "not using integers or rational numbers" is inevitably going to be a little slippery).

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 27 at 0:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry Myerson: Sure. Edited. Thanks for mentioning that. $\endgroup$ – Jack Apr 27 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? $\endgroup$ – Brahadeesh Apr 30 at 15:29
5
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

Requesting an undelete for this question. I'm having trouble seeing why the question was deleted, and the asker did so after I provided an answer, which seems like a possible abuse of the Q-A system. The question itself was well-written and motivated, with clear effort put in, and received three upvotes. Further, I didn't come across any duplicate questions in math.se, though I may have overlooked them.

Proposition 5.4.4. in Tao

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This and this might be (partial) duplicates, but that doesn't warrant a deletion. Voted to undelete. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Jun 12 at 6:27
4
$\begingroup$

Please consider undoing the duplicate votes here. The duplicate target is quite different as it asks for algorithms while this questions asks for easy ways to calculate determinant (so that careless errors are less likely to commit). The duplicate target is a poor question without context (though with some decent answers).

FYI: It failed the reopening review five times before, as of 3rd Sept. 2018.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Two points: 1. did you ask the user that put it on hold as duplicate about it? 2. It seems that the answer on the dupe target includes the answer on the original question. // Personally I think the answer given on this question is pretty much besides the point. And the question is very localised. Long story short. I'd delete post. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Sep 3 '18 at 11:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid: I didn't (I thought this case is obviously wrong, and it had 4 reopen votes already). I agree that the question is localised and deletion is also a good choice. $\endgroup$ – user99914 Sep 3 '18 at 15:21
4
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

As per quid's advice, I would like to request that Number of real roots of an iterated quadratic: $x^2-3/2$ be undeleted. The question was self-deleted within a few minutes of my posting an answer which claimed that the conjecture of the question was false, so the reason for the deletion appears to be embarrassment. However, the question itself was an interesting one, as evidenced by more than 10 upvotes and 7 stars.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Reopened, then closed as duplicate.

It would be useful if this question can be reopened, so that it can be closed as a duplicate (see comments to post for more details).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am not sure there is much benefit in re-opening questions just to re-close them with alternative close reasons. This particular post really should be expanded significantly, if it is to be saved. Re-opening and re-closing will still probably lead to deletion. In particular, because it is a self-answered post, we can expect much higher standards than a post where the OP genuinely has a question. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Oct 28 '18 at 1:07
4
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, then deleted again, then undeleted again, then reopened, then closed again, then reopened again

Please undelete Compare $\arcsin (1)$ and $\tan (1)$ because OP has made an observation $\sin(\tan1)\leq1$ in order to compare the two quantities in the question title. This question has

  • 4 net upvotes;
  • 3 $\star$;
  • 2 (ex)-moderators' answers; and
  • 1 Undelete vote remaining to save this question.
$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I would like to see this question opened:

Intersection of a nested sequence of subgroups

The OP has provided all the context requested in the comments. Also, it is an interesting and relatively hard question.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
  • 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. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 2 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♦ Jul 9 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♦ Jul 9 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♦ Jul 9 at 14:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ OK, @quid, I've rolled back to a more complete version. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 10 at 0:17
4
$\begingroup$

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?)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "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. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 23 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♦ Jul 23 at 15:30
  • $\begingroup$ (Even more so if you notice that the OP has become an ex-account, by the way.) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Jul 23 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. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Jul 23 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♦ Jul 23 at 15:45
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @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 at 16:00
4
$\begingroup$

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”.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
1 2 3 4 5

You must log in to answer this question.

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