# Requests for Reopen & Undeletion Votes (volume 07/2018 - today)

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.

Earlier versions of this thread that served as a model:

• I edited the post inspired by a concern expressed in a comment. – quid Jul 19 at 23:49

Reopened

Please reopen Am I have right answer about dual problem? since OP has responded to the comment and used MathJax to type out the math. In the revised version, OP has attempted to construct the dual program of the primal program, so it's OK for reopening.

Reopened

Show that the order of an element g is well-defined

The issue and its resolution can be seen in the comments to the thread. A brief summary is: I and others didn't understand the question (possibly others influenced by me), but I understand it now. Its fine in its current form.

• @Brahadeesh How is it closed as a duplicate? I didn't see it when I clicked into the question... – YuiTo Cheng May 2 '19 at 8:21
• @YuiToCheng Terribly sorry, I could swear I saw it was closed as a duplicate. I'm reverting my edit. Don't know how that happened. :/ I'll be more careful next time. – user279515 May 2 '19 at 8:24

Undeleted, redeleted, re-undeleted, reopened

Please consider reopening the following question:

O is a point in triangle ABC. OA, OB and OC are joined and produced to meet BC, AC and AB at D, E and F. Find the value of OD/AD+OE/BE+OF/CF.

OP clearly indicates his/her attempt in the post:

I took the special case when O is exactly in the centre of the triangle and got the answer $$1$$. But how can I prove it by taking the general case?

This is not a zero effort question.

• Question was not merely closed, but deleted. Now undeleted (but still closed). – Gerry Myerson Apr 27 '19 at 0:26
• It's worth noting that special cases provides is an effect way to prevent "no-clue questions". – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Apr 30 '19 at 15:42
• The real missing context is the source and motivation of the problem. – Carl Mummert Apr 30 '19 at 18:50
• CRUDE: "What is the source of FLT?" Fermat: "myself" CRUDE: "What is the motivation of FLT?" Fermat: "for fun" – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 May 1 '19 at 0:14
• @GNUSupporter8964民主女神地下教會 If you actually believe that this is the way that Fermat conceptualized his work, then I would suggest that you have a deeply flawed view of history. While the culture of mathematics was quite different in Fermat's time (e.g. methods were generally regarded as secrets), I am quite certain that he was more than capable of describing motivation for his work and the context into which it fit. Your caricature of Fermat does a disservice to your argument. – Xander Henderson May 2 '19 at 13:36
• Q: Where's the proof of FLT? Fermat: I don't have enough space to write it. Do we have as much sense of humor as the French three centuries ago? – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 May 2 '19 at 15:00
• @GNU sorry to be blunt, but that just does not add up at all. So much so that there just is no joke there even. For a start, the problem is not due to Fermat. The famous margin is that of a published book he was reading (Arithmetica by Diophantus, IIRC) that presented the problem. I am to lazy to check what exactly it is but it's a certainty that there was some context there. For example, that for $n=2$ there is an infinitude of solutions that can be parametrized. Second, and crucially, Fermat never published or even mentioned that 'note to self' (likely as he realized it was wrong). – quid May 2 '19 at 18:11
• @quid Thanks for your math history lesson, but I supposed that's a classic joke whose truth value wouldn't be judged as on the main site. Looking back, that doesn't suit serious math historians. Another meta post might be needed to avoid extended discussion here. – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 May 2 '19 at 19:06
• @GNU what exactly should have been funny? You tried to ridicule others. – quid May 2 '19 at 20:17
• @quid Your question concerns a subjective feeling, so the response is personal, and clearly mine can't be carried to serious math historians, but the historic truth itself is not the main point. If you wish a more serious example, you may consider Ramanujan instead. – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 May 2 '19 at 21:05
• @GNU well, whatever, it seems you did try ridicule others. You tried to make a joke at their expense. This is has little to do with subjective feelings. It's an observation. If your intent was a different one, then what was it exactly? Example of what? Do you want to present Ramanujan as a good example of mathematical communication? What the example maybe shows is that just because something is presented intransperently one should not dismiss it out of hand. However, it seems to me that Hardy and maybe others did try to get Ramnujan to be more transparent. So what again is your point? – quid May 2 '19 at 21:23
• @quid My "joke" is an response to Carl Mummert's comment. It's actually much more simpler than you think. Good math questions can come without source and motivation (comprehensible to others). If asked for a "motivation" and "source" for one of Ramanujan's identities (perhaps by Carl Mummert), what would Ramanujan respond? – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 May 2 '19 at 21:36
• @GNU it's a bit amusing that to prove your point you linked to a question that specifically asks for motivation. Apparently that question for motivation was deemed as a quite meaningful one. First, it's not clear to me what question Ramanujan would have asked. Once you clarify that we might discuss the point. Generally, it's not even clear what your point is. What one might deduce is that "because something is presented intransperently one should not dismiss it out of hand." It's still poorly presented. And, incidentally Ramanujan had to get lucky for somebody even considering it at all. – quid May 2 '19 at 21:45
• Quoting from Ramanujan's wiki page: "An equation for me has no meaning," he once said, "unless it expresses a thought of God." From this, a sensible response for Ramanujan would be an appeal to his own religious beliefs. From your comment to one of my recent meta answer, he wouldn't need to post the religious motivation on the main site. – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 May 2 '19 at 21:45
• @quid I was typing on mobile, and my question "what would Ramanujan respond?" is intended to be answered in the reponse that follows. Many main site questions ask for proofs for an equation/inequality. Which particular identity is not important. Anyone will do, say, Ramanujan's triple product identity. According to Carl Mummert, in order to qualify as a good question, Ramanujan would have to provide a "source" and a "motivation" of his own identity. As a result, he would have appealed to his God, but that's not what the community wanted. So a request for motivation can get sth illogical. – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 May 2 '19 at 22:14

Reopened

I nominate A question of arithmetic regarding erection cost of a structure. for reopening since the question asker has shown his/her work in solving the problem.

• I agree, but think they should also be encouraged either to edit what they said in comnents into the question, or to give someone else permission to do so. – timtfj Feb 5 '19 at 12:20

Undeleted, put on hold, deleted

Please undelete https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3209899/290189 since OP self-deleted her own post after receiving an answer. This is an abuse of the system.

• I undeleted it. Please try to use correct terminology. Undelete and reopen are not the same. – quid May 2 '19 at 7:33
• @quid Thanks for your undeletion and reminder. I'll be aware of that next time. – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 May 2 '19 at 11:49
• Question is currently on hold. – Gerry Myerson May 3 '19 at 3:06
• @GerryMyerson Thanks for notification. Status updated. – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 May 3 '19 at 6:52

Undeleted and closed as duplicate

Choose 2 good batteries out of 8 (4 bad 4 good) was deleted by its author, after an answer was posted. This is considered to be an abuse of the system.

Full disclosure: the only answer posted before the self-deletion was mine.

• Currently closed as a duplicate. – Gerry Myerson May 3 '19 at 3:07

Undeleted

Please undelete A probability to 6 in a dice since OP has self-deleted his/her own question after receiving an answer. This isn't fair to the answerer because his answer deserves review from the community.

Please undelete A contradiction in calculating the legendre symbol and https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3224172/290189 because OP's have self-deleted their question after receiving an answer from others.

• I undelete both. At least for the one, it'd also have been possible to let it deleted as it was a relatively simply oversight. It's not clear there is any value in keeping that around. But there is also no harm, so. – quid May 14 '19 at 15:31
• Please adhere to the "one request per answer" format; having multiple requests in the same answer makes it difficult to track changes. – user279515 May 15 '19 at 8:03
• @Brahadeesh Thanks for your comments. I'll beware of this practice next time. – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 May 15 '19 at 9:00

Undeleted.

Please undelete Bounding the number of edges in a graph satisfying a certain property since the question asker has self-deleted his/her question after receiving an answer.

Closed, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted, reopened.

Unfortunately, the question I asked Why is the zero polynomial the only one to have infinite roots? was put on hold as off-topic first, then closed, and then deleted. I edited it much for it to be reopened, but it wasn't reopened. I apologise if it was off- topic to you, but I edited it. If it being off topic yet, kindly suggest improvement or undelete it please.

Note (quid): I reopened this now. The mass-editing and double posting OP is gone, the question is simple and a bit confused, but arguably not overly contrived and understandable, and answered. It's not impossible somebody else might find this useful at some point. Let's move on.

• Have you finally made up your mind between "Wikipedia" and "wikipedia"? – Did Feb 3 '19 at 21:37

Undeleted

Intersection of Normal closure and Center

The OP deleted question after answer was given.

• I undeleted, but maybe write a proper answer next time. – quid Jun 4 '19 at 13:39
• @quid I like hints (plus its a pretty straightforward question - I spent a while debating whether to just leave it at "kill $t$"). – user1729 Jun 4 '19 at 13:43
• Then maybe start a Q&H site. This is Q&A site. – quid Jun 4 '19 at 18:09
• @quid the hint was clearly sufficient for the OP - they wouldn't have deleted their question otherwise! :-) – user1729 Jun 4 '19 at 19:00
• That's pretty irrelevant to my point. Further, If "sufficient for the OP" is your main concern, why do you bother us with an undelete request? // The way that hint was orginally presented to me personally made it pretty confusing. The new format is in a way better. But, frankly I just despise that form. I know it's popular but I think it's terrible style. – quid Jun 4 '19 at 22:55

Reopened, closed

Please consider reopening (also for the sake of avoiding further unreasonable strong action of deletion, there has been a delete vote already): How to show for $$x\in \mathbb{R}$$, $$|x|\leqslant 1+x^2$$

This is completely a legitimate question to ask for a beginner. Also, OP did show his/her work in the post, although he/she did not notice what he/she proved is actually a stronger result. Furthermore, it has very well written answers.

I feel it very harsh to close/delete such posts.

• I'd agree with Jack's assessment that the OP already has $2|x|\le1+x^2$ and they missed that this implies the result - and this should count towards context. It would be nice if the OP included how they got $2|x|\le1+x^2$, even if only as a link to some place where this is proved - but since the OP hasn't been seen for a long time, it is unlikely that they add this to the post now. – Martin Sleziak Aug 29 '19 at 7:14
• I'm a bit hesitant to call this "legitimate question to ask for a beginner". It seems to me that noticing that $|x|\leq 2|x|$ and knowing that order is (by definition) transitive is more basic than proving $2|x|\leq 1+x^2$, so I would interpret the question more as the OP having been just momentarily distracted. I doubt it's really necessary to keep that question and its answers. – Arnaud D. Aug 29 '19 at 10:39

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted, reopened, put on hold, deleted, undeleted again (the war goes on)

The topic starter solved this problem by using "differentiation or Lagrange multipliers", but he looked for a short solution and he got it.

Thank you!

Undeleted, Reopened

Please consider undeleting and reopening this post: Convergence or diverge of the series $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left(\frac{1}{n} - e^{-n^2}\right)$$

OP clearly indicated his/her thoughts at the beginning of the post, and there is a well written (with 10 upvotes) answer.

Undeleted, reopened, closed

What is the maximal number of subsets of a finite set, such that no one is the unions of some other ones? is a serious mathematical question which has attracted two useful answers (full disclosure – one of those two answers is mine). Please have a look and consider casting the third vote to undelete.

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.

• 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"). – Xander Henderson Jul 28 '19 at 16:18
• 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. – Xander Henderson Jul 28 '19 at 16:18
• "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. – Jack Jul 28 '19 at 17:30
• 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. – Xander Henderson Jul 28 '19 at 18:16
• 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. – quid Jul 30 '19 at 11:47
• 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. – quid Jul 30 '19 at 11:50

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.

• 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.) – quid Jul 13 '19 at 15:43
• 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. – Jack Jul 13 '19 at 18:09
• 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. – quid Jul 13 '19 at 18:57
• 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. – Jyrki Lahtonen Jul 14 '19 at 16:26
• @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. – Bill Dubuque Aug 4 '19 at 15:24
• @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. – quid Aug 4 '19 at 15:26
• @quid "Changes of status" are not harming anything. There have been more in the past and they eventually settled down. – Bill Dubuque Aug 4 '19 at 15:27
• @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.) – quid Aug 4 '19 at 15:29
• @quid I think there are for more important matters that deserve to be deemed "fundamentally unreasonable". This shouldn't even be on the radar. – Bill Dubuque Aug 4 '19 at 15:32
• @BillDubuque examples? – quid Aug 4 '19 at 15:33
• @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. – Bill Dubuque Aug 4 '19 at 15:42
• @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. – quid Aug 4 '19 at 15:49

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.

Reopened

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.

• re 3. The question had been closed back then already. – quid Aug 19 '19 at 15:21
• I've edited 3 (it wasn't really a reason to reopen). Yes, it was closed and then it was reopened. – user1729 Aug 19 '19 at 15:23
• So, the question was already controversial back then. Which is documented by the first comment at score +12. Don't create false narratives; – quid Aug 19 '19 at 15:24
• @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". – user1729 Aug 19 '19 at 15:30
• 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. – quid Aug 19 '19 at 15:35
• 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). – user1729 Aug 19 '19 at 15:50
• 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. – quid Aug 19 '19 at 15:57
• 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. – quid Aug 19 '19 at 16:12

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.

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.

• Did you check to see whether it's a duplicate? Looks to me like the kind of question that would have been asked before. – Gerry Myerson Aug 23 '19 at 12:20
• @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. – Jack Aug 23 '19 at 18:02
• 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? – quid Aug 23 '19 at 21:08
• @quid Why the account deleted is a 'point to count' to support the deletion? – allesia_b Aug 23 '19 at 21:59
• @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. – quid Aug 23 '19 at 22:08
• @quid I don't get it. Your previous comment suggested like 4 'bad' things about the post, so why to keep that. – allesia_b Aug 23 '19 at 22:21
• @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. – quid Aug 23 '19 at 22:30
• @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. – allesia_b Aug 23 '19 at 23:02
• 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. – Martin Sleziak Aug 29 '19 at 6:58

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.

• 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. – Gerry Myerson Jul 29 '19 at 23:40
• @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. – mrtaurho Jul 30 '19 at 10:03
• 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. – Gerry Myerson Aug 11 '19 at 23:13
• @GerryMyerson Thank you, for your response. I will do so, as soon as I have time! :) – mrtaurho Aug 11 '19 at 23:16
• 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. – Gerry Myerson Aug 27 '19 at 0:07
• @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. – mrtaurho Aug 27 '19 at 0:14

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.

• 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. – Gerry Myerson Aug 30 '19 at 0:06
• @GerryMyerson Correction made. Is there anything else? – Arbuja Aug 30 '19 at 0:18
• 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. – Gerry Myerson Aug 30 '19 at 2:32
• @GerryMyerson Users are trying to delete my post. Is this acceptable? – Arbuja Aug 30 '19 at 21:22
• 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? – allesia_b Aug 30 '19 at 21:40
• Or you could also start a bounty :) I think you can set one for +150 – allesia_b Aug 30 '19 at 21:41
• 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? – Gerry Myerson Aug 30 '19 at 22:54

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.

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.

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.

Reopened

I asked a question yesterday: Coupon collector's problem: mean and variance in number of coupons to be collected to complete a set

This asks for the mean and variance of the coupon collector's problem in the general case when the coupons have unequal probability. It has been marked as a duplicate of this one: Expected time to roll all 1 through 6 on a die

My edit clearly explains that I'm asking for the variance in the general case, while the question it is a supposed duplicate of asks only for the mean and that too in the special case of the coupons having equal probabilities.

So, the first question is not a duplicate of the one linked to it for sure. For this reason, I wanted the duplicate tag to be removed if possible.

I did ask a similar question myself in another post a few weeks ago here: Coupon collectors problem: variance calculation missing a term.

However, I wish to delete that post (the only answer there is my own) and want people to refer to this one since it is much more comprehensive.

In any case, the current question linked there is clearly more limited in scope along multiple dimensions.

• I suggest that in the interests of transparency you edit a link to your earlier question into the body of the newer question, and vice versa. – Gerry Myerson Nov 28 '19 at 21:25
• @GerryMyerson I'm going to delete the other question, so this might not be necessary. – Rohit Pandey Nov 28 '19 at 21:34

Reopened

Request to reopen Derive an atlas of Monge patches for a surface in 3D

Undeleted

I'd be glad if my question Operator characterizations of continuity and “co-continuity” was undeleted. It was automatically deteleted after one year since there were no answers, no comments and no votes. Recenly I wanted to reference the question in another answer and it was very hard to find it (see my post on Meta for more details). I think the question itself is written well enough and that it contains a useful summary.

• If the question doesn't generate some activity, then presumably it will be auto-deleted again somewhere down the track. – Gerry Myerson Feb 15 at 21:38
• @GerryMyerson Hopefully, that would happen no sooner than in one year, so there is chance to get some activity. In fact, it got an upvote after the undeletion. – user87690 Feb 15 at 22:17

Deleted, undeleted, deleted.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The close notice for How to prove that the permanent of a doubly stochastic matrix is positive? says, "Add details and clarify the problem being solved. This will help others answer the question."

The problem being solved is perfectly clear (to anyone who knows what a doubly stochastic matrix is, and what the permanent of a matrix is), and others have not needed any help answering the question, so the close notice strikes me as invalid. Please consider voting to reopen this question.

• Possibly you did not get the memo: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31147/… – quid Mar 5 at 15:31
• @quid if a user is going to vote to close a question, and if none of the currently available close reasons applies, I reckon the user really ought to leave a comment explaining how the question doesn't measure up. What was done for this question, even if OP clicked to see the further information on "add details and clarify," gives OP no clue as to what to do. Heck, it gives me no idea as to what the close-voters actually had in mind. Let's reopen the question, and give the close-voters the chance to make their case. – Gerry Myerson Mar 5 at 21:30
• Maybe that would have been better but there is only so much time and it fits well enough. As for you, it is hard to believe that you actually had not understood what the matter was (as opposed to disagreeing). Either way, I hope you keep the information obtained here in mind going forward. – quid Mar 6 at 4:36