40
$\begingroup$

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:

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I edited the post inspired by a concern expressed in a comment. $\endgroup$ – quid Jul 19 at 23:49

177 Answers 177

1 2 3 4 5
6
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, reopened

Please consider undeleting and reopening this post:

If $\sin(\pi x)=a_0+\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}a_n \cos(n\pi x)$ for $0<x<1$ then what is the value of $(a_0+a_1)\pi$?,

where OP gave his/her thoughts:

Honestly I have no idea about how to approach this problem. I tried the expansion of $\sin x$ on the left hand side and then expand $\cos x$ on the right but end up with a mess. Then again $\cos x=(\sin x)'$, but by converting each term on the right hand side into derivative of sine does not give any sensible identity to draw out something. Really out of ideas on this one. Is there any way to do this? Please give me some hints. Thanks for your time.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted, reopened, closed as duplicate (mod)

Please consider undeleting this post: 2011 IMC Section A Problem 3

This is not an ongoing contest problem. The answer is known online. @Aqua's answer (with 14 net upvotes) is a useful one.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Poorly explained answer. Had downvoted it back then. $\endgroup$ – quid Jul 6 '19 at 19:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That was a really bad excuse for deletion. $\endgroup$ – Jack Jul 6 '19 at 21:09
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Since I did not delete it, I don't need any excuse (and I doubt the delete-voters where aware of my voting back then). Please do not write comments that might suggest otherwise as not everybody can check it easily. $\endgroup$ – quid Jul 6 '19 at 22:20
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted, deleted, undeleted, reopened

Please consider casting the final undelete vote and reopening this post:
Evaluate $1+2-3-4+5+6-7-8+\cdots+50.$

This question is well written and with effort. It has very well written answers, one of which gives a generalization of the problem.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Please undelete this post: $n^4 + 4^n$ is a not a prime

OP clearly states context for his/her question:

This question appeared in the undergrad entrance exam of the Indian Statistical institute.

When $n$ is even the proof is simple. For $𝑛=2𝑚+1$ I am utterly stuck.

True that this is a duplicate of some previous posts, but duplicate can be useful. Moreover, it is not necessarily easy at all to identify this question as a duplicate:

  • The useful searching engine Approach0 is NOT well known, neither it is mentioned on the page of help center of MSE.
  • A quick search of the expression $n^4+4^n$ on the MSE searching box returns something irrelevant: enter image description here
  • If one posts this as a new question: the "similar questions" box does not show any one of the duplicate:

    enter image description here

"Questions that are extremely off topic, or of very low quality, may be removed at the discretion of the community and moderators." This 5 upvoted one with three answers is not.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ At some point, every math student really ought to be shown the factorization of $x^4+4$. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Sep 26 '19 at 7:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is an umpteenth reincarnation. Even in 2013 when André Nicolas answered it we had already covered it many times. Also, while duplicates were seen as somewhat useful back in 2013 (when Jeff Atwood's strangedupe comment was often cited), the site has moved on since. The most recent word from above (don't remember for sure whether it is from JA or the current CEO Joel Spolsky) reads: Over time duplicates become vast landmine fields. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 26 '19 at 16:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The sentence ("... landmine fields") Jyrki mentioned is from this article by Jeff Atwood. That one is specifically talk about StackOverflow, which is sort of the counterpart of MathOverflow. (cont.) $\endgroup$ – Jack Sep 26 '19 at 17:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Jeff explicitly writes in that article the following : But I will point out that there is plenty of precedent on the Stack Exchange network for splitting sites into "expert" and "beginner" areas with slightly different rulesets. We've seen this for Math vs. MathOverflow, English vs. English Learners, Unix vs. Ubuntu... perhaps it's time for a more beginner focused Stack Overflow where duplicates are less frowned upon, and conversational rules are a bit more lenient? $\endgroup$ – Jack Sep 26 '19 at 17:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am not following SO much at all, but what little I have seen of it it is nowhere near the level of sophistication of MathOverflow (admittedly my observations are likely biased). But I would support walling off lower level math (like freshman and below) to a Math Learner site. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 26 '19 at 21:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't get what's the contradiction even. Certainly duplicates will happen, some will be caught other won't be caught. Of those that do get caught we'll keep some that seems relevant as "sign posts" and we remove the rest without much ado (either way). Why would we want to keep them? $\endgroup$ – quid Sep 26 '19 at 22:26
  • $\begingroup$ On search, searching n^4 + 4^n for works like a charm Why would one use strange spacing, or in any case just check one version, and include the completely irrelevant dollars? $\endgroup$ – quid Sep 26 '19 at 22:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid: your linked search of n^4 + 4^n , which does return a duplicate result, uses "strange spacing". If one searches n^4+4^n without the spacing before and after the plus sign, one would not see the charm. $\endgroup$ – Jack Sep 27 '19 at 0:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The answers are all dupes of answers given many times in the past. This FAQ occurs many times every year. There is no need to keep adding duplicate answers every time it reoccurs. Doing so makes it difficult if not impossible for users to locate the most enlightening answers. $\endgroup$ – Gone Sep 27 '19 at 0:45
  • $\begingroup$ @Jack I forgot to add that Theoretical Computer Science is the StackOverflow analogue of MathOverflow. Don't get mislead by the inclusion of the word Overflow. If SO walls off a learners' site, we should do the same. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 27 '19 at 3:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And also, the voting already gives low level math an unhealthy advantage in the gamification aspects of the site. Simply because users are obviously not going to (and should not) vote on material over their head. You wanting to be more lenient about low level duplicates would exacerbate an already serious problem. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 27 '19 at 3:45
  • $\begingroup$ Well, let's forget about which spacing is strange or not. One might learn the lesson that one should search for both variations. I'd still maintain that the spacing there is the more natural way to type it. But I am glad that you seem to agree now that the dollars are useless. // And even if it was completely unnatural it is the very spacing that was used in that post that you want undel too. Thus at least that user likely would have used the same spacing if they had searched and keeping this as a dupe would not even help future searches (except maybe via answer, but then merge could do). $\endgroup$ – quid Sep 27 '19 at 8:44
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I propose reopening Has Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem been formalized?

The question simply asks whether there is a computer-verified version of the proof of the theorem. This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable mathematical question, and I can't see why anyone would vote to close it, much less delete it (there are currently two votes to delete).

Full disclosure: I posted an answer (the only answer) to the question, which OP has accepted. The answer attracted a downvote – I'm guessing that was done to make it easier to close and delete the question, since I can't see what objection anyone could have to the answer.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, Reopened

I want this question to be to undeleted because I wrote a long answer for it and it was a correct and well-explained question. The question now has more context.

Edit: Can someone suggest for edits that should be made to reopen this post also? This problem is quite similar to Siegel's lemma and I don't think MSE has a post regarding such problems. I think it should be reopened also. Please consider this to be reopened.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for being upfront about your reasons for wanting this question undeleted / reopened. Unfortunately, I do not feel that I can vote to undelete the question–the question is a "problem statement question", and does not meet the quality standards of Math SE. The asker has not provided any context, such as a source for the problem or any thoughts about how to approach the problem. I am sorry that you invested your time into answering this question. Perhaps, in the future, you will be a little choosier about which questions you choose to answer. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 13 at 23:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Xander, we do sometimes keep low quality questions that provoke high quality answers. I can't see question or answer so I can't say whether that applies here. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 14 at 2:36
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson What do you mean "we"? I was expressing my opinion (note the large number of first person singular pronouns in the text), and hoping to convince others to follow my lead. You appear to have a contrary opinion. Wuderbar. But please don't phrase your opinion in such a way that you give the appearance of speaking for the rest of the community. Again, what do you mean "we"? $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 14 at 3:42
  • $\begingroup$ BTW you linked to your answer rather than to the question. The wording suggests that you probably wanted to link to the question. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jul 14 at 4:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak I just requested to undelete this because I have invested time to think about the solution and I solved this using pigeon hole principle. It's an undeniable fact that this a very good and seemingly unexpected application of pigeon hole principle. I think it should be undeleted. I have nothing more to say. $\endgroup$ – Shubhrajit Bhattacharya Jul 14 at 5:02
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I thought I made it clear, Xander, that I was not expressing any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the deleted question or of Shubhrajit's answer. On the other matter you raise, I think it is a fact, and not an opinion, that occasionally we – the m.se community – find an answer of such high quality that we choose to keep it on site despite the failings of the question that prompted it. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 14 at 6:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson My understanding is that the community usually have huge argument about what to do with low quality question with great answers. In some heated case the mods even had to lock the question to stop the delete/un-delete war. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Jul 14 at 17:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Arc OK, but I see nothing in what you've written that contradicts what I wrote. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 14 at 23:07
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

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.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Reopened


Please consider reopening Indian Mathematicians. The question was closed as off-topic, apparently because of the existence of the History of Science and Mathematics site.

As I pointed out in a comment, first, questions about history of mathematics are on-topic here. The tag has almost two thousand questions and a decent amount of recent activity.

Second, the quality of many interactions at the HSM site is sadly rather poor (I was very enthusiastic about it when it started, so this poor quality quite bothers me), and it may end up being a disservice to send this question there.

(I would actually love to see the quality at that site to raise uniformly, and hope it happens relatively soon. But that is another matter.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think at least the formulation of the question should be clarified a bit before it is reopened. The first answerer already misunderstood it. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 30 '18 at 21:11
  • $\begingroup$ Fair enough. I'll do a slight edit. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Aug 30 '18 at 21:16
  • $\begingroup$ I had decided to do an edit myself. Sorry for the confusion. I'll check back in one or two hours. If it's still closed then I'll give the final vote(s). This allows also for further editing. $\endgroup$ – quid Aug 30 '18 at 21:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No problem. I gave the edit a second pass. (And thank you.) $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Aug 30 '18 at 21:22
-1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted, reopened

Please undelete On a colon ideal in the polynomial ring $\mathbb R[x,y]$ because this question has got a score of 2 after OP included his/her own thoughts on the problem. This algebraic geometry question might add value to the main site.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Selfdeleted without answer. No need to undelete. $\endgroup$ – quid Feb 25 '19 at 9:16
-1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, redeleted, re-undeleted, redeleted, undeleted

Please consider undeleting the question: The asymptotic behavior of $n\ln n -n$

This question has four well written answers by experienced users. One answer has six upvotes and contains useful links to similar problems.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Well, I'd consider something in the spirit of the comment as the best answer there. Anyway given the complete lack of context it's hard to know which type of answer would be useful, whence the voluminous list. Also all standard likely on the site in similar form tens if not hundreds of times. At least one answerer made the effort to link it to related posts. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 6 '19 at 22:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 17 '19 at 22:01
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Probably I should have refrained of posting an answer there - however at the time when I posted there were some answers already and they seemed (to me) more complicated than needed. I have also included links to some other questions - you can see that similar questions are on the site (and they have similar answers). I will also say that when posting the answer I was fully aware that the question is likely to be closed/deleted. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jun 18 '19 at 17:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak: I believe "closing" is enough for this particular post. I strongly disagree with the deletion considering the high qualities of answers. Such good contents will be useful for future readers (this is closed post is not some stupid trivial textbook exercise) and should be preserved on the site. $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 28 '19 at 12:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Jack Well, several discussions here on meta suggest that when deciding about closing (and probably also deleting), most users take into account mainly quality of the question (and do not look at answers). Since you have mentioned that you care about preserving context, I should specifically point out that my answer contains some links to other posts which use Stol-Cesaro. Will Jagy reposted his answer in another thread. (For obvious reasons, I might be a bit biased in this particular case.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jul 6 '19 at 17:55
-1
$\begingroup$

Please consider undeleting this post: Integral $\int_{0}^{2\pi} \ln (2\sin(\frac{x}{2}))dx$

Whether the asker should articulate more details in "I've tried some substitutions" could be debatable for reopening the post; I do not think it should be deleted. There have been two answers, one of which has 11 upvotes.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The question was on hold for a week without modification before it was deleted. The answers are fine, but standard, and don't rise to the level of exceptional. I see no reason to undelete this question. The asker clearly got what they wanted, and I don't see that question providing any lasting value to the site. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 2 '19 at 0:46
  • $\begingroup$ The lasting value to the site, like many other posts, is that there are two good answers to a tricky calculus question, which is not only useful for the asker but also future readers. $\endgroup$ – Jack Jul 2 '19 at 1:48
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The first part of your reply to me does not contradict what I said: you say that there are two good answers, I said that there are no exceptional answers. As to use to future readers: I disagree. This is a specific integral which can be analyzed using relatively standard techniques. The question itself is not terribly searchable (it is only going to come up if someone wants to deal with that specific integral (e.g. they are assigned the same problem as a homework exercise, and are trying to cheat), and the answers are not of any general interest (they are standard, but not general). $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 2 '19 at 1:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Disagree. "This is a specific integral which can be analyzed using relatively standard techniques. ... the answers are not of any general interest " does not justify the deletion. MSE is not MO: most, if not all, of questions here "can be analyzed using relatively standard techniques". For instance, this recent question that has two good answers, the accepted one written in detail nicely by you, is a rather "standard" one. I would certainly not vote to delete such posts. (In case of any possible confusion: this is NOT sarcasm.) $\endgroup$ – Jack Jul 2 '19 at 2:48
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It is funny that you pick that example. I downvoted that question, and voted to close it. It was not closed, and the other answers were, in my opinion poor answers (as they failed to address the key point, which is that an induction proof is needed somewhere). If the question is not going to be closed and deleted, it should at least have a correct answer. I would still be happy to see that question closed, and would not object to its deletion---my answer is nothing special, and doesn't (IMO) rise to the level of exceptional. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 2 '19 at 2:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Moreover, applying standard results to a specific problem is very different from demonstrating the correctness of standard results then leaving it to the reader to apply that result to their specific problem. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 2 '19 at 3:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, (1) I have done my proposal for undeletion. Readers can make their own decisions. (2) I will object strongly the post I just mentioned being deleted, considering the quality of your exposition and egreg's good answer. (How do you find the review history by the way?) (3) ... have to leave now. $\endgroup$ – Jack Jul 2 '19 at 3:13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Probably a duplicate of one or more of math.stackexchange.com/questions/815762/… and math.stackexchange.com/questions/889902/… and math.stackexchange.com/questions/679233/… and math.stackexchange.com/questions/2656431/… and also comes up in any question containing the name "Clausen". $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 2 '19 at 3:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jack To find the review history I go to the timeline of the post and then click on the link to the review event there. I don't know if there's a quicker way. $\endgroup$ – Brahadeesh Jul 2 '19 at 6:41
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson: having read your links one by one, I would probably not called the post a duplicate of those, although they are related to the Clausen function. (Never known this before, thanks for mentioning it.) $\endgroup$ – Jack Jul 2 '19 at 11:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Brahadeesh: Thanks for that. One can indeed use math.stackexchange.com/posts/3143084/timeline $\endgroup$ – Jack Jul 2 '19 at 11:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's funny how those who voted to close/ delete are here on this site for a while, and even claim to know that the question is easily searchable. Yet, instead of trying to mark it as duplicate, they simply delete it. Also it's quite bold for a single group of people (CRUDE users) to decide that it has no value for this site. $\endgroup$ – Three Sided Coin Jul 22 '19 at 8:50
  • $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson I wrote above in the third person since you're not the only one who believes that, but since you commented it here, can you please tell me why haven't you tried to mark it as duplicate (if it's easily searchable) and simply decided to remove the content? (maybe there's a reason that I'm missing). $\endgroup$ – Three Sided Coin Jul 22 '19 at 8:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ -> Before voting to delete, please check whether there are any good answers; if so, then the question should be flagged for moderator attention as a potential merge candidate. We don't like to lose great answers!. And the answers provided there are definetly good. Thus those who deleted it violated the "rule" that I copy-pasted. // A little off-topic, but I hope that you are aware that who asked the question couldn't care less if the question is deleted since he/she already took the informatio needed. Thus by deleting the question, it even helps that user instead of penalizing them. $\endgroup$ – Three Sided Coin Jul 22 '19 at 14:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ -> Of course, the posts around here aren't only for those who asked, but for the whole community. I fail to see why there ins't a way to penalize the users (for example a "question ban" if the questions previously posted are bad), but instead the decision that CRUDE users took is to penalize the whole community by erasing good content. Anyway, it's pointless if I type here in the comments, soon I will try to make a meta post about something related to this. Thanks for your time and have a nice day! $\endgroup$ – Three Sided Coin Jul 22 '19 at 14:12
-1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

Please undeleting this post: How to prove that $\frac{e-1}{2e} \le \int_0^1 \frac{e^{-x}}{1+x}dx \le \ln 2$

OP did have his/her own attempt. This is not a zero-effort trivial question, which should not be deleted.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Deleted.

2 or 3 days ago, the question What's the connection between the Heegner numbers and 37? was asked.

(1). The first version of that question, was not eligible as a question to be asked in MSE, and I was the fifth user, who voted to close the question.

(2). In the comments:

  • User @David wrote that: 37 is the largest prime for which -163 is a quadratic non-residue.
  • Then I pointed out that his comment is not right by this comment: Consider this Legendre symbol: (−163/137)=−1.
  • Then he answered that: The statement is more like 37 is largest prime p s.t. All primes, q: 2<q<=p have (−163/q)=−1. I would like to state this correctly and succinctly.

(3). Why I was convinced that his question is a good question?

  • His comment was interesting to me, because I've realized that the phenomenon, which he pointed out, is not accidental and is closely related to the properties of Heegner numbers. [Not important: As you can see in the comments; at first, I wrongly thought that it is related to Rabinowitz theorem. For proof of the Rabinowitz theorem see this answer by Will Jagy.]
  • Definition: A Heegner number is a square-free positive integer $d$ such that the imaginary quadratic field $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-d})$ has class number $1$. I wrote my answer, in the comments [see these six consecutive comments]. If we set this definition as the definition of Heegner Numbers, then the First case is just the immediate consequence of the definition. I mean whether we know the total set of Heegner numbers is finite or not, we can do the first case without any use of powerful theorems like Baker–Stark–Heegner theorem, just by the knowledge of $19^{\text{th}}$ century. [Very Important: Unfortunately, in the Second case, I strongly used the Baker–Stark–Heegner theorem. Not important: If we break the second case in some new cases, then the case "$(\dfrac{-H}{q})=0$ and $q^2 \nmid (H)$" can be done in a quite elementary manner, but yet I don't have any idea to do the case "$(\dfrac{-H}{q})=0$ and $q^2 \mid (H)$".]

(4). If a curious person sees that question, then probably he/ she would click on the show N more comments to see the comments. So Why do I insist to reopen that question? An unsatisfactory answer would be something like this: (A) Suppose that a random student who does not have enough curiosity about this special question, will see this question. (+) Since this question is closed for the lack of details, (++) and since there is not an answer for it; the most probable scenario would be that he/ she will be taught there is nothing special behind this question. (B) Another unsatisfactory answer would be something like this: From a pedagogical point of view: Someone else can write a better answer, maybe someone can be able to answer it without using any powerful theorems. Finally, reading a solution as a single answer is better to follow the separated comments. At last, I should confess whether this question reopens or not, it would not cause important changes.

(5): TOTALLY IRRELEVANT: As a math student, I should be careful about my counting: In my last comment, I wrote My 7th comment, but it was my eighth comment.




Added after the edit:

Let's set this definition as the definition of a Heegner number. As I stated in the comments, the question can be considered as

  • Q($1$): Let $H$ be a Heegner number, then for any prime $2 \neq q \leq \dfrac{1+H}{4}-2$ we have $(\dfrac{-H}{q})=-1$,

Or equivalently:

  • Q($2$): Let $H$ be a positve square-free integer, and let $q$ be a prime number $2 \neq q \leq \dfrac{1+H}{4}-2$, such that $(\dfrac{-H}{q})=+1$. Then $H$ is not a Heegner number.

Both of these equivalent questions are very surprising to me. Now consider this question:

  • Q($3$): Let $200 \leq H$ be a positve square-free integer, then there exists a prime number $q$ such that: $2 \neq q \leq \dfrac{1+H}{4}-2$ and $(\dfrac{-H}{q})=+1$.

If I was able to prove the above question, then the Baker–Heegner–Stark theorem, would follow immediately. So Q($3$) is not an easy question.

  • Reamrk($4$): Let $\dfrac{49}{3} \leq H \stackrel{8}{\equiv} 3$, then the Gauss's upper bound [Gauss's bound, is a better bound, than Minkowski's bound, for the norm of ideals to be checked in order to determine the class number of the imaginary quadratic field $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-H})$], tells us: By considering Baker–Heegner–Stark theorem, if $H \notin \{ 11, 19, 43, 67, 163 \}$, then there is a prime $q$ such that: $2 \neq q \leq \sqrt{\dfrac{H}{3}}$ and $(\dfrac{-H}{q})=+1$. Note that for $\dfrac{49}{3} \leq H$ this new bound is surprisingly smaller than $\dfrac{1+H}{4}-2$. These were some parts of my unsuccessful attempts to prove Q($3$), without use of Baker–Heegner–Stark theorem.
$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ You ask, "Why do I insist to reopen that question?" and then you give two reasons, both of which you yourself label as "unsatisfactory". So, I'm confused. Do you have a satisfactory reason for insisting on reopening the question? (And, if so, can you give it without boldface and blockquote and all-caps and other annoying typographical flourishes?) $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jun 16 at 23:58
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @GerryMyerson , I used the word "unsatisfactory" for the first answer (A), because I wasn't sure about the opinion of the generic person, who would see that answer; and also I didn't have enough courage to say that answer is satisfactory to me. Also, I didn't add new comments to that question, since writhing long mathematical comments is very hard to me, because of the lack of the editor to be aware of my LaTeX mistakes, and also there is a restriction on the total number of characters. $\endgroup$ – Davood KHAJEHPOUR Jun 17 at 6:28
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @GerryMyerson , I accustomed to use bold and colorful formats, for the convenience of the reader; because to me, it plays the role of change of tone in the web environment. I didn't even think that it may be annoying; thank you for notifying this subject. $\endgroup$ – Davood KHAJEHPOUR Jun 17 at 6:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DavoodKHAJEHPOUR Can you please edit your post here down to the essential details? There is so much extraneous commentary in it that I cannot pick out the reason(s) why you think this question should be reopened. I'll note that the question has now been deleted. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jun 17 at 13:58
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @XanderHenderson Since this edit would be something related to a question, which is already deleted; I am afraid that if I continue editing my post here, then I will be punished because of some rules that I do not know. Since there is no guarantee that I will not be punished, I will not continue no longer; However, I believe that the answer to that question contained important things. $\endgroup$ – Davood KHAJEHPOUR Jun 17 at 14:17
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @DavoodKHAJEHPOUR You will not be punished for editing your answer to make it more clear. If you believe that the question is worth saving, then you should clearly and concisely make your case. Three screenfuls of oddly formatted, rambling text is unlikely to convince anyone. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jun 17 at 15:07
  • $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson If writing that question and its comments would be helpful, I will do this. Do you mean this? $\endgroup$ – Davood KHAJEHPOUR Jun 17 at 15:54
-1
$\begingroup$

REOPENED, Closed

I request to reopen Why does $f(z) = z^n$ have no antiderivative only for $n=-1$? It was closed as a duplicate of Antiderivative 1/z on C.

I disagree that it is a duplicate. The first question was a soft question and the second was a hard question. OP wasn't literally asking for a proof that $1/z$ doesn't have an antiderivative. He was asking what makes $n=-1$ "special". This is a different question. One question is soft and the other is hard.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, Deleted, Undeleted, Reopened

This question on Laplace Transform has been deleted for no real reason. OP has showed some of his work. So there is no reason to delete this topic. Vote to undelete. Thanks.

We still need a single vote to undelete. Thanks in advance.

Laplace Transform $\left(\frac{\cos \sqrt t}{\sqrt t}\right)$

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ (1) The user presented two problem statements, not a single question. (2) The user did not (contrary to your assertion) demonstrate any work---they claimed to have done some work, but did not actually demonstrate any of that work. (3) The user provided no other context, such as a source for the problem, basic definitions... anything, really. (4) Finally, it is poor form to ask for undeletion of a question which you have answered without disclosing your interest in the problem. You are not an impartial third party, as you stand to benefit from the undeletion. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Apr 5 at 3:33
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Op said he used power series to solve one of the question but couldn't solve the second one . Both questions are related as I have shown in my answer. @XanderHenderson $\endgroup$ – Aryadeva Apr 5 at 3:36
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ (1) "Serie" is not a word. (2) The user claims to have done a thing. That doesn't mean that they have demonstrated that thing. Claiming to have done a thing does not provide any context for the problem. (3) So what if the problems are related? The user did none of the work necessary to demonstrate that relation. The "question" is presented as two isolated problems. It is the job of the asker to explain how the problems are related; it is not the job of the answerers to provide that context for the asker. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Apr 5 at 3:39
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I meant OP used power series. I hope it's more clear. $\endgroup$ – Aryadeva Apr 5 at 3:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No. The user claimed to have used power series. A 2-year-old also can claim to use power series just because their big brother said so. Notice that you refused to address any of the 3 points @XanderHenderson brought up. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Apr 27 at 3:55
-1
$\begingroup$

May I request to Undelete and Reopen (or at least undelete) this question Prove $\frac{ab}{a^5 + b^5 + ab} + \frac{bc}{b^5 + c^5+ bc} + \frac{ca}{c^5 + a^5 + ca} \leq 1$ when $abc=1$, $a,b,c>0$ answered by me? The question is well written and it's a very tricky inequality.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Let me invite you again to read the instruction at the top of this thread. (1) A request should be posted as an answer below (one request per answer) $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Jul 23 at 16:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (2) Do not only post a request, like "request reopening of link" $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Jul 23 at 16:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have edited it. Sorry. $\endgroup$ – Shubhrajit Bhattacharya Jul 23 at 17:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I requested (by flagging the moderators) that both of your inequality threads be merged with their duplicates). I hope that they oblige, although my merging requests have been turned down a few times, so I am not too optimistic. $\endgroup$ – Batominovski Jul 23 at 17:04
  • $\begingroup$ I see @Batominovski $\endgroup$ – Shubhrajit Bhattacharya Jul 23 at 17:07
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't really understand why it was deleted? $\endgroup$ – Shubhrajit Bhattacharya Jul 23 at 17:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is likely that they will refuse to merge at least one thread. The questions are not exactly the same in this deleted thread as in its duplicate. In the deleted thread, $abc\geq 1$ is the constraint. In the duplicate, $abc=1$ is the constraint. (However, this difference doesn't affect the proof at all.) $\endgroup$ – Batominovski Jul 23 at 17:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Batominovski yeah. $\endgroup$ – Shubhrajit Bhattacharya Jul 23 at 17:12
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You are expected to make a case for undeleting and/or reopening a question, Shubhrajit, not just a request. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 23 at 22:06
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson what do you mean? $\endgroup$ – Shubhrajit Bhattacharya Jul 24 at 3:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I mean, Shubhrajit, that you are supposed to make some attempt to try to convince us that it would be a good idea to undelete/reopen the question. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 24 at 3:18
-2
$\begingroup$

I nominate https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/29570/290189 to be undeleted because this meta question contains moderator's feedback to deal with serial downvotes.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What information is in that post that is not in the FAQ? Also as it was auto-delered it'd be redeleted. $\endgroup$ – quid Feb 9 '19 at 12:46
  • $\begingroup$ @quid That post provides real examples of questions being serial downvoted. $\endgroup$ – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Feb 9 '19 at 12:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How is that useful? $\endgroup$ – quid Feb 9 '19 at 13:14
-2
$\begingroup$

Deleted, undeleted, redeleted and merged with another question

I request the undeletion of this question (on denesting $\sqrt{a-b\sqrt{c}}\,)$

Reason: I asked this question, and it turned out to be a duplicate. However, this doesn't deserve deletion as this question contains a crucial formula that is a very useful one. It is very useful to me, and it is sad for me to see that the community is not able to access it anymore. Please undelete this question.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The answers there are dupes of the answers in the linked dupe thread (and many others - this is a FAQ). I see no reason to further such rampant duplication. $\endgroup$ – Gone Mar 1 '19 at 1:03
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque there is a useful formula. Perhaps if you can transfer the answer to the other question?? I find it really useful. $\endgroup$ – Max0815 Mar 1 '19 at 1:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That well-known formula is already in Frank's answer in the dupe (and many, many other answers here). Moreover, he derives if instead of pulling it out of a hat as in the answer in your thread. $\endgroup$ – Gone Mar 1 '19 at 1:06
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque how is it derived? even if so, the other answer on my question has a basic method that is not included in the other question. $\endgroup$ – Max0815 Mar 1 '19 at 1:08
  • $\begingroup$ Please read Frank's linked answer (and the others too). That's the point of linking your question to the dupe target. $\endgroup$ – Gone Mar 1 '19 at 1:09
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque oh, right. $\endgroup$ – Max0815 Mar 1 '19 at 1:11
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand why this question was deleted. It seems to me that the only reason is that it is a duplicate. I do not believe that this is a reason to delete duplicated (and this was discussed recently here). $\endgroup$ – user1729 Mar 7 '19 at 13:10
-2
$\begingroup$

I would like to see this question undeleted and mark as duplicate but keep it alive on the network.

Also, I object to the deletion since although the questions are looking for the same thing, I must mention that they are not word by word duplicates and the context also seems a bit different. Also, the answers are not duplicates (except one which coincidentally was answered by the respective OPs of both questions).

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This question was deleted by a moderator, which means that only a moderator can undelete it. As such, there is pretty much nothing that anyone here can do for you. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Apr 5 '19 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson I posted this on meta. Someone asked me to post here (just to be shot with 3 odd downvotes here ) $\endgroup$ – tatan Apr 5 '19 at 18:54
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Votes on meta do not mean the same thing that they mean on the main site. A downvote means "I do not agree with this statement." I would interpret the downvotes here as an indication that the community does not want to reopen / undelete your question. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Apr 5 '19 at 20:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Aloizio Macedo can you please give some reasons on why you single-handedly deleted the question? (as it stands it looks like an abuse of power, but maybe there'a reason that I'm missing) $\endgroup$ – Three Sided Coin Jul 22 '19 at 9:16
-2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted,reopened

+6 question with thousands of views and with two, +18 answers. Created in 2016, deleted last week.

Found by the SEDE query Suspicious question deletions from the last week.

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Standard solve-my-problem-without-me post, and nothing spectacular about the answers. I oppose undeletion. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 3 '19 at 10:29
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers To me, it is absolutely non-trivial, if the sum of a singular and a nonsingular matrix is always nonsingular. The example in the accepted answer was catartic to me. Your attitude would be probably acceptable on the MO, but that is another site. Here sub-phd, maybe even pre-grad level questions are allowed, and you should view the quality and usefulness of a question on the level for which it is written, and not on yours. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 3 '19 at 10:38
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I have no idea at what level the question was written (and neither do you), because the asker never bothered to say anything at all beyond the statement of the problem. This is not a do-my-homework site, regardless of how little quality control some users want. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 3 '19 at 10:44
  • $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers Maybe the user 1) is enough educated to be able to think about, is the sum singular and nonsingular matrix always nonsingular 2) But he is not enough well educated to know its answer? Is it enough narrow to know, who is he? Hm? Or should he have attached his CV to his question as well? $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 3 '19 at 10:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This isn't a case for some hyperbolic slippery slope argument, and you know that. If the question had context, it could be appropriate for the site. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 3 '19 at 10:51
  • $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers The required "context" what you would want so strongly, is clearly visible in the post. And you know that. This is a typical case of the dark direction what you made from this once so friendly and open site. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 3 '19 at 10:54
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I disagree with T.Bongers's comment: "Standard solve-my-problem-without-me post..." In what "standard", if exists at all, for a site "that is for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields"? I disagree with the deletion in a way that I would strongly disagree with (possible in the future) deletion of this and this "standard" exercises (created 2016 and 2018) T.Bongers answered (nicely!). $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 3 '19 at 11:55
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Jack Thanks for bringing those posts to my attention; I agree with your judgement of the first one (but not the second), and have started a close vote. I would delete my answer if I could, but it was accepted. Of course, it's clear that your comment is a disingenuous off-topic attempt to poison the well by calling me a hypocrite. So it goes. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 3 '19 at 12:15
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers: Thank you for your message. "it's clear that your comment is a disingenuous off-topic attempt to poison the well by calling me a hypocrite." Please don't put any word into my mouth that I did not say at all. I am sorry that you think it in that way. I do mean what I said and I do NOT mean to be sarcastic at all. Since we are talking about "deletion", I don't think my previous comment is off-topic. And yes, if you or others were going to vote to delete the linked posts that you answered, I would disagree and vote to undelete. $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 3 '19 at 12:48
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I'd like to remind everyone to keep it civil. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 3 '19 at 15:17
-3
$\begingroup$

I think we need to open the following Mike Lyons's answer: The smallest value of $x^2 + 5y^2 + 8z^2$ such that $yz+zx+xy=-1$

I think it's a beautiful and right answer. We need to redact it only.

It was my mistake to delete this answer.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that the question has since been deleted. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Oct 9 '18 at 22:27
-3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, closed, re-deleted (not by question-asker this time)

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3129981/290189 because the question asker has self-deleted his/her own post after getting an answer. The communnity has not got enough time to judge its value.

$\endgroup$
-3
$\begingroup$

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

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ OP shouldn't have deleted it, but what a miserable excuse for a question! With all due respect, I don't think you should have answered it, not without first getting OP to bring it up to standards. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson May 24 '19 at 2:47
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The question was deleted one minute after receiving an answer, but this request was posted more than two years later. If the asker deleted the question to cover up the fact that they got help, then they already succeeded. I don't really see a reason to undelete this, because it would just get closed and deleted again. $\endgroup$ – user296602 May 24 '19 at 6:42
-3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted, reopened

Minimize a+b+c+d given LCM(a,b,c,d)=1000 [closed]

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The relevant rule is this: "Before voting to delete, please check whether there are any good answers; [...] We don't like to lose great answers!" By voting to delete the question, you violated this rule. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 1 '19 at 17:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I disagree with the way Xander disagreed: "I see no reason to undelete this question in it current form". I disagree with the deletion as I would disagree with (potentially possible) close/deletion of this question Xander answered: math.stackexchange.com/q/2414862 $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 1 '19 at 17:16
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Jack I have no problem with the closure of the question to which you linked. I do find your targeted citing of that question interesting, and would note that when I answered that question, I had been active on MSE for a grand total of 2 months, and had not yet learned the norms. If I saw that question newly posted today, I would likely very quickly vote to close. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jun 1 '19 at 17:28
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Normally when posting here, one is expected to put in an explanation for why this question should be undeleted, reopened, etc. The boldface line on the top is meant to indicate the status changes after posting, and not be a part of the request. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 1 '19 at 17:28
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson: "I have no problem with the closure of the question to which you linked". Sorry I do. I would disagree with closing the question you answered nicely I linked and in particular I would strongly disagree with deletion of that linked post. I do not think there was/is a "norm" for deletion so far for the site except the general rule peterh quoted in a comment. $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 1 '19 at 17:30
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid I was impressed on them. It is subjective. But their score is objective. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 1 '19 at 17:45
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ For moderator who keen on different opinions/ideas from his/her own by MSE users: "Please don't abuse your power to stir discussion up when users disagree with your (possibly not so wise) idea of deletion and 'and respect the many different viewpoints in our diverse community' ". $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 1 '19 at 17:51
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @peterh: I don't see how that situation on server fault is "similar". And again, I'd ask you to avoid using inflammatory language. It helps no one, except perhaps you, to release pent up anger. It's inappropriate, and deteriorates the remote option that anyone is going to have a discussion. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 1 '19 at 17:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Jack so how about you respect others views or at least the rules of the site. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 1 '19 at 17:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If you think that this is somehow similar, you should spend a bit more time trying to learn the underlying software, the system of privileges, and what is the job of the moderators. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 1 '19 at 17:57
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @peterh the discussion is on-going since years. Just this morning I spent an hour with an other user to analyze data about this. Users (as opposed to moderators) are severely rated limited as concerns deletions. That you are miffed because three of your posts were deleted, does not mean that there is some problem. Yes, some users are against deletions, but again that's true since years. Maybe focus more on following rules regarding questions quality, then the issue regarding deletions will be of much less relevance. Don't cherry pick rules. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 1 '19 at 18:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid It is your decision, what will be a mod issue. I need to notice, too, this sequence of events: 1) one of my old posts is deleted, in my opinion, falsely. 2) I complain on the meta. 3) The post gets an undelete and a reopen. 4) 2 of my old posts are deleted. | I think, the nicest possible interpretation is that my meta post attracted some attention to my old main site posts. The lesser nice, but maybe more likely interpretation is that these were revenge deletions for my complains. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 1 '19 at 18:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @peterh the short questions are not blindly deleted but they are reviewed for potential deletion. Well your question has 0 score [correction: -2 now], which leaves use were exactly. Five users thought they want the question closed. Maybe there view also should count for something. Of course they did not all bother to dv in addition, but there opinion seems to be clear. Kindly stop the cherry picking and the quoting of half-sentences. However you want to frame it, the thread is not good. Also the high score is a high quality is a gross over simplification, as everybody knows. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 1 '19 at 20:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @peterh people evaluate your post and find it lacking. Of course you can pretend it's for other motives, but then way back then it was already closed. That some users upvoted the answer does not change that. It's well-known that often almost obvious stuff is especially well received because there are enough voters that can easily make sense of it. Again the answer is not good in the way I believe good is intended there. It's a correct yet completely standard answer to simple and contrived question. The site is better without that thread. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 1 '19 at 21:53
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I have edited the post (revisions, the version after my edit) in order to add at least some context. I have not case my undelete vote - I'll wait first to hear whether you are satisfied with the edit and leave some time for you if you want to edit it further. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jun 3 '19 at 5:16
-4
$\begingroup$

Please undelete and reopen this elementary post:
How to find the value of the expression $\log_3(a)+\log_3(b)+\log_3(c)$ given that $a$, $b$, and $c$ are the roots of $24x^3 - 121x^2 + 87x - 8 = 0$?

I answered question in this post, and I do not consider it missing context at all. OP summarized his/her attempt succinctly in the post: "Finding the roots seems complicated." (If one can find the roots $a$, $b$ and $c$, one can of course plug them into the expression $\log_3(a)+\log_3(b)+\log_3(c)$ to find its value. This is a natural attempt. OP did not notice that one does not need to solve the cubic equation in order to solve this problem.) Such attempt is by no means "I tried to solve this problem myself, but it seemed complicated."

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I will reiterate the comment I left before the question was deleted: I have read the question. The comment you cite does not seem to provide much context. Nearly any question on this site could be finished with the line "I tried to solve this problem myself, but it seemed complicated." Appropriate context would be, for example, a description of where this problem comes from, and what the asker is studying right now. A presentation of potentially relevant theorems and definitions would also provide context. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Sep 30 '19 at 19:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Moreover, the question has also been negatively received (while I don't usually consider voting on a question to be terribly compelling, it is a factor which should be considered), and neither of the answers is terribly compelling (J.G.'s answer has the advantage of being concise, while Jack's answer seems like overkill to me---why invoke Vieta's formulae (the question appears to be a question one might find in an elementary algebra class, though that context is missing; Vieta is, to the best of my knowledge, not generally taught in these kinds of classes). $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Sep 30 '19 at 19:06
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Finally, @Jack, you insist that the question has context because the asker stated "Finding the roots seems complicated." Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that this is context. I do not see how it is sufficient context. Better context would be an indication of what the student is studying and and what level; a reference for the problem; a discussion of what theorems, definitions, or other results they know; etc. The point of asking for "work done" is to get an indication of the level of the student. In this case, knowing that they tried to find the roots doesn't give much insight. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Sep 30 '19 at 19:11
-4
$\begingroup$

May I request to reopen this question Prime factor of $A=14^7+14^2+1$ so that everyone can see the beautiful answers?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ No, it's written that viewable only to members who have the close and reopen vote facilities and the OP $\endgroup$ – Shubhrajit Bhattacharya Aug 6 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ That sentence refers to the list of close voters, not to the post itself. $\endgroup$ – Brahadeesh Aug 6 at 15:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Brahadeesh If a question is closed, there are always risks of being deleted (which might be a bit harder for this question due to the vote counts of the thread). $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Aug 6 at 15:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ And to @ShubhrajitBhattacharya, I think it will be easier to get it reopened if you add more contexts into the question. Right now it is a plain PSQ. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Aug 6 at 15:35
  • $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar I agree, but that was not what Shubhrajit meant by his words: see his first comment for clarification. $\endgroup$ – Brahadeesh Aug 6 at 21:03
  • $\begingroup$ It's too late to save this question. This question is from 4 years ago, and there is no way to recover the context from the comments like you can do with some questions. This is why we provide an incentive for questions to have attempts or working shown. $\endgroup$ – Toby Mak 2 days ago
-7
$\begingroup$

Ratio problem for aptitude exam in India [closed]

None of the questions was eligible for a deletion, and also their closure reason is highly problematic.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ If the question was not eligible for deletion then how, pray tell, was it deleted? The question itself is nothing more than a problem statement, with only minimal context given (it is from some Indian aptitude exam). The question is unmotivated, and there is zero evidence of any effort having been made to answer the question. I see no reason to undelete. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jun 1 '19 at 16:39
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ As an addendum, I find your demanding tone to be unpleasant. It is your opinion that this question, and the one you linked to above, should be undeleted. It is your opinion that they should be reopened. It is your opinion that no valid deletion reason exists. Clearly, others disagree with you. Demanding that others take some action is unreasonable. Make a request, make your case, then wait for the community to decide. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jun 1 '19 at 16:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I have no demanding tone. I see a content deletion rampage, targeting particularly me, possibly as a revenge action for my recent meta post, where I complained another rule violating content destruction. What you can see now, is that I try to do something about it. If it is "demanding tone" for you, let it be so, but it is not a reason to me to do anything differently. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 1 '19 at 17:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @peterh Your phrasing "Needs undelete, possibly reopen, no valid deletion reason exists" is very aggressive and demanding, and stating that no valid deletion reason exists is rather dismissive of the people who disagree with you. A lot of the site functions well because of consensus, not dismissive attempts at solo decision-making. (-1) from me, because I think this is a bad question to keep on the site. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 1 '19 at 18:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers Please check the end of the other discussion. I not only complained, I also analyzed SEDE data. I invested this effort because 3 of my old posts were deleted within days, what made me suspect that it was not pure coincidence. In the current discussions, I've seen only little arguments that the posts were really bad, however the relevant rules explicitly forbid the deletion of questions with good answers. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 1 '19 at 18:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers From here: "Before voting to delete, please check whether there are any good answers; [...] We don't like to lose great answers!" $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 1 '19 at 18:34
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @peterh It says: "Closed questions that are of no lasting value whatsoever should be flagged and deleted." Thus, explain the lasting value of the post. Same for the other question. As far as I can tell there is no lasting value. It might be nice that you helped that other users even though they did not follow the rules regarding question quality, but lasting value, there isn't any. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 1 '19 at 18:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @peterh At least eight different experienced voters here think that the question is worth closure or deletion. Perhaps you could spend some time thinking about why that is, instead of just rules-lawyering to get the answer back. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 2 '19 at 3:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers My problem with your this comment, and with your attitude, that after the removal of the argument from authority part, nothing remains. Only a bunch of revenge votes. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 2 '19 at 3:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers It is interesting! I worked a lot on the answer. Only that a problem is not interesting you, is not a reason to click delete. Actually, doing that is a power misuse. There should be clear rules, what makes a question deletable, none of them was mentioned. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 2 '19 at 5:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GNUSupporter8964民主女神地下教會 Btw, my these whole current activities were initiated by the following sequence of events: 1) some of my posts were closed and deleted on crap reasons. I remained silent that time. 2) yet another of my old posts were deleted. I initiated a discussion on the meta. 3) Two another of my old posts were deleted. It was clearly a revenge action from the 10k+ side. | Deleting posts by revenge votes is clearly one of the most serious power misuses, and should be punished harshly. However, the mods looked elsewhere, and said "no proof". --> this was the point as I started $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 14 '19 at 11:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GNUSupporter8964民主女神地下教會 my current activities, and I won't stop. I have the right to use the site as it should be used, I find it an ignorable surreality if you call this "rep farming", and I will fight the retroactive, massive content destructions until my last breath. So is it going, I am sorry. Downvoted posts don't deter me. Deleted posts don't deter me, I use them as examples of your hostility. The only what would deter me if you could somehow convince me, that what I want, is no good, but I think it will be a hard work. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 14 '19 at 11:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GNUSupporter8964民主女神地下教會 After my comments yesterday, you've deleted my yet another answer, and I've got 5 downs. It all happened to my old posts. You are just a dirty mafia, and you have exactly zero moral base to complain any "rep farming", while you are downvoting and deleting main site posts as revenge, for unrelated meta activities. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 16 '19 at 6:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GNUSupporter8964民主女神地下教會 I know very well, why. And also you know the "why" very well. I will continue this discussion if you stop playing the fair one, while your revenge actions are clearly visible. | Btw, the mods seem relative inactive in such infights, compared to other sites - on other sites, they had already probably intervened for my vehement style. However, they had probably intervened also for your retributive, revenge actions. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 16 '19 at 9:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GNUSupporter8964民主女神地下教會 Oh yeah, of course "no revenge"... $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 17 '19 at 8:59
1 2 3 4 5
6

You must log in to answer this question.

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