# Requests for Reopen & Undeletion Votes (volume 01/2021 - 12/2021) [duplicate]

The purpose of this thread is to 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 the thread that served as a model:

• If I understand correctly, it is not ok to post undeletion requests if one of the deletion votes was from a mod right? I assume that it is not, but I just want to be sure. Also, feel free to delete this comment if it is appropriate, or ask me to delete it and I will.
– user33907
Apr 7 '21 at 3:45
• @HereToRelax To weigh in on that, I don't see why it wouldn't be OK, but only a moderator could help you. One would guess that it would be more appropriate to flag, but that doesn't really allow for back and forth discussion. Apr 7 '21 at 20:25
• You are always welcome to discuss questions which a moderator has voted to delete. If you are asking about this question, it is worth noting that my delete vote was cast in 2019, before I was a moderator. I stand by that vote---even with the minor clarification in the comments, the question still lacks context---but you are welcome to discuss the question. If you can find two people who agree with you, the question can be undeleted.
– Xander Henderson Mod
Apr 8 '21 at 14:47
• @XanderHenderson: There may never be a perfect time to close this (last year's thread) and start a new one, but things are about as quiet as they could be. Jan 5 at 19:54
• @hardmath I am out of town right now, and not very engaged with Math SE. However, I agree that a new thread should be made. My understanding is that creation of the new "Reopen & Undelete" thread is a kind of hazing ritual for new moderators, so maybe one of the new mods should do it. :D
– Xander Henderson Mod
Jan 6 at 3:15
• @hardmath There is no reason to keep creating new threads. In fact it is better not to, since then there are always (many) prior requests visible (and easily accessible) - which sheds light on the current community consensus on such exceptional matters (which e.g. may discourage noise: requests doomed to fail). See also old discussion on such Jan 6 at 10:29

Undeleted, redeleted

Please undelete Given a $$1 \times n$$ board and $$4$$ colors including white,red,yellow,blue as the question asker has deleted his/her own question after receiving a well-written answer. That's not something we wish to see after spending effort on other's question.

• For future reference, "The asker deleted the question immediately after getting answers" is something that may be worth raising a flag over.
– Xander Henderson Mod
Jan 25 '21 at 23:00
• When this question was deleted by the user who posted it, @Xander commented, "Please do not delete your questions after getting an answer. This is disrespectful to the people who provided answers to your question, and is disrespectful to people in the future who may be interested in the question and answers here." So isn't it still disrespectful to those future users, to delete it by vote now? Jul 30 '21 at 0:14

Reopened

This question was closed as a duplicate by the Community bot, yet it is not remotely related to Find all $$x$$ that satisfy $$3 \cos{2x}=-1$$ for $$0^{\circ} \leq x \leq 180^{\circ}$$, or the previous versions of the question.

• Has the Community bot gone rogue? Oct 15 '21 at 10:07
• I've never seen this happen before. It's probably some bug in response to the OP's behaviour: they changed the entire question to ask a new question. Oct 15 '21 at 10:08
• But the way I read the timeline, OP changed the question after the bot closed it. For what it's worth, the duplicate target had the same OP, who also changed that question. Oct 15 '21 at 10:11
• That's why it's a mystery. The OP didn't change that question before the bot closed it, yet something about their other questions could have triggered it. Oct 15 '21 at 10:13
• Never mind, this meta post reveals that the OP marked their own question as a dupe on purpose. Oct 15 '21 at 10:16

Undeleted, deleted again

How can Irrational numbers go on forever asks an elementary but reasonable mathematical question with a factual answer. It was closed as “needs details or clarity”, but I found it clear enough to answer. (I think it should probably have been closed as a duplicate.)

Part of the purpose of Math SE is to be a repository of questions and answers. Similar questions have come up before, so I was at some pains to write a clear answer that might prevent the question from coming up as often in the future.

• If you thought "it should probably have been closed as a duplicate", why did you not vote to close it as a dupe, and worse, answer it anyway? Nov 4 '21 at 15:35
• Despite their combative tone I will take your questions as asked in good faith. I often vote to close questions as duplicates, but doing so properly requires an effort to find an appropriate duplicate, and in this particular case I hoped that some other user might have one ready at hand. (It appears that so far, nobody else has been wiling to make the effort either.) And I wrote my own answer for the same reasons I answer any question: because I thought I could answer the question clearly and accurately, addressing the asker's particular confusions, and because I enjoyed doing so.
– MJD
Nov 4 '21 at 19:43
• For the best interest of this site, please read Enforcement of Quality Standards. You are not exempted by declaring CW when you knowingly answer questions that are dupes, or answer PSQs. There, you have been informed. I'm done here. Cheers! Nov 4 '21 at 20:00

Would it be possible to reopen: Counting how many items can be weight on a scale if we pick the weights optimally
It has an accepted answer and is not the same as the post that is linked to. Thank you for your time.

• I think it is sufficiently answered by the other post, even if it is not an exact duplicate. Mar 25 '21 at 0:18

Closed and Deleted

The magma-cas is 100% mathematical software, and questions about it are not usually answered when posted on Stack Overflow. While the question is about how the software handles caching, MSE is the place to post this where it will most likely get an answer (and it has an answer; there are better answers that could be posted if it was not closed). It is also not a low-quality question that can be answered by pointing to the documentation.

[Edit:] MSE is where to post about these programs (magma, sage, gap) to get answers. The takeaway from the meta post linked in the comments is that no other SE site has a dedicated tag for the Magma CAS- in fact posts there are likely to be confused for a different computational package with the same name. There is no online forum anywhere. These posts are of interest to mathematicians and mathematicians only.

• To give the counter-argument, questions about implementation are explicitly noted as off-topic in the Help Center: "Algorithm implementation/design, computer simulation and modelling, etc. [might better be asked on] Stack Overflow".
– Xander Henderson Mod
Feb 13 '21 at 19:54
• @XanderHenderson That is not for the magma computer algebra system, it is for a different sortware package that is also called magma (though it looks like there are maybe a few random questions for the computer algebra system in there by mistake; they are told they are in the wrong place). Feb 13 '21 at 19:56
• I've revised my comment. Also, note that this has come up before: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22052/…
– Xander Henderson Mod
Feb 13 '21 at 20:02
• Also relevant: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/17119/… (takeaway: "being software used by mathematicians, Magma questions are on-topic here.") Feb 20 '21 at 20:16
• The question has been deleted. Mar 24 '21 at 22:35
• I don't see how a question can be deleted "using high rep", Morgan. Questions can be deleted by a moderator acting alone, or automatically by the stackexchange software on meeting certain criteria, or by a sufficient number of users voting to delete, but not (to the best of my knowledge) by a single non-moderator user, no matter how many points that user has. Mar 25 '21 at 5:33
• @GerryMyerson Apparently I was mistaken, and questions can be deleted with 3 votes only, even with an upvoted accepted answer and a nonnegative score. I was under the impression they needed 5. Mar 25 '21 at 5:51

Reopened

This question is what I'm seeking to address. OP visited CURED, and I asked them for context and they've added it (source + definitions + partial attempt), in my opinion. I think this has passed through the reopen queue once (garnering three reopen votes), and so I'd like to use this thread to get this reopened.

My involvement : helping OP to add context, and while I did vote to reopen initially, I thought the dialog box didn't load properly the first time and therefore actually clicked the button twice. I didn't see that the reopen vote had actually got registered the first time and hence got retracted upon the second click . Now I can't vote to reopen it.

• krrchmrtz? (Gesundheit?) Aug 12 '21 at 13:39
• @GerryMyerson I swear I couldn't think of a word in English. I'll edit the post to be a little less harsh on myself. There, that should hopefully do it. Aug 12 '21 at 13:39
• This is a new feature that one can retract reopen vote. Unfortunately the pop up looks very similar to the one for casting the reopen vote. I almost got tricked too.... Aug 12 '21 at 13:42
• @ArcticChar I will hopefully be more careful next time, it's already happened to me once but on that occasion I didn't post here, and it got reopened eventually. Aug 12 '21 at 13:43
• I'm always grateful to learn to easy way (from mistakes of others)! Aug 12 '21 at 19:29
• @hardmath I agree with you, although in this case I'd say I will probably make another mistake like this before being careful, that's how I usually am! Aug 12 '21 at 19:40
• @TeresaLisbon Now it is reopened
– user876009
Aug 13 '21 at 10:52
• @JitendraSingh Thank you, although I did make some mistakes in helping this user, I hope that the general principles were in place during our discussion. I also thank you for providing criticism when needed of the way I helped OP. Aug 13 '21 at 10:54
• Once again, Teresa. :/ Sep 22 '21 at 19:52
• @user21820 The action will be done, thanks for the information. I do not know the subject matter , otherwise I'd have offered to help out in the math as well. Dec 19 '21 at 15:04
• @TeresaLisbon: Okay thank you very much. Feel free to ask me anything about the mathematical content, if you wish to learn it. =) Dec 19 '21 at 15:07
• @user21820 I have clarified this in my room, stated it clearly. Thanks for the offer of teaching me : I will take it sometime! Dec 19 '21 at 15:52
• I don't know what you mean; your statement implied that I was also wrong. Why? And that user even ignored your statement, that's why I said "never admits". Regardless of this, I'd be glad to teach you if you want, but I'm definitely disappointed that you allow such behaviour to continue. If you don't want to explicitly say anything, at least move those messages to trash. Dec 19 '21 at 15:58
• @user21820 I'm in conversation with the user : you are right that I was ignored. I'm sorry, I will have to be more firm, and will be so. Dec 19 '21 at 16:01

I am perplexed by the deletion of this question, and would recommend it for undeletion. (Full disclosure: I answered the question, which is what made me aware of its disappearance.) The question was flagged as "spam or offensive content," and the user (who, if I recall correctly, was a new contributor) has been removed, but the edit history shows no indication of vandalism, and comments from the user, unless some have been deleted, all seem civil and on point.

• The account is new, but it is the same person who keeps on forming new accounts to circumvent their (original) account suspension. Sep 8 '21 at 11:28
• @ArcticChar, that would certainly explain the removal of the user. I assume the flagging as spam and deletion of the question are an automatic part of such removals. Sep 8 '21 at 11:41

Deleted (by moderator)

THIS should be reopened. The question asks for the reduction formula. The alleged duplicate answers that the closed form requires hypergeometric functions. But that is irrelevant since the reduction formula does not.

• Said user is asking for something that does not exist. The said user has now, with the post you want to reopen, repeated the question three times, which itself is inappropriate. math.stackexchange.com/questions/4336878/…, math.stackexchange.com/questions/4336878/…, plus the one you link to. Dec 18 '21 at 17:55
• All three have been essentially equivalent, all have been closed as a dupe. Said OP already knows said reduction formula does not exist. Let this question die with dignity; it does not need your life support, as it has no answer. Dec 18 '21 at 18:02
• From the exchange under this duplicate, I think the OP had got what they want (thus I voted leave closed in the reopen review queue) Dec 18 '21 at 18:43
• The original version is here. I have deleted the other two duplicate versions. I do not think that the question merits reopening, but I am not going to take any action there.
– Xander Henderson Mod
Dec 18 '21 at 19:41
• At this point in time, there is no benefit at all to having another question about the reduction formula (for integrals). The law of diminishing returns applied here states that each additional question adds fewer and fewer benefits to the site, and in fact, may even clog the site up. Dec 19 '21 at 5:17

Closed, reopened, closed, deleted (by OP)

Update  OP confirmed that the question "had a typo", and should be the polynomial in the proposed dupe, so re-closing with said dupe target is likely the best course of action.

This question was originally gb-closed as a dupe of this one, then left-closed in review (3-0), then gb-reopened. The question is incorrect as stated - it asks to prove an irreducible polynomial is reducible, but this is almost surely due to a typo (or misprint) in an exponent. Fixing that it yields a common problem - said dupe. The OP has not corrected the question so rather than leave open a confusing question to prove a false claim, I recommend reclosing it either with the proposed (corrected) dupe, or "needs details..."

• Closed as "needs details" , I could have potentially closed as either but I felt that there are two conflicting narratives, and even though , at the end, it was asserted that the polynomial contains $5x^3$ rather than $5x^2$, the question post does not reflect this, and I can't see the benefit of marking this as a dupe when the question itself isn't clear. With $5x^3$, it is actually reducible, but with $5x^2$ it is irreducible. If the OP is gone, then I don't even see a point in keeping the question around as it stands. Dec 13 '21 at 7:09
• @Teresa Agreed, there is no good reason to keep the question, so it doesn't matter much which way we close it. Dec 13 '21 at 8:30
• I've just cast the first delete vote. Dec 13 '21 at 8:41
• Dear Bill, this is the thread for requesting reopening and undeletion votes. Why are you adding a close/delete vote request here? Dec 13 '21 at 20:15
• @KReiser As I stated when I devised the thread 9 years ago, it is intended for matters that require exceptional handling. Dec 14 '21 at 2:49
• Whatever someone personally may have thought when developing an idea, it is the community's interpretation and application of the idea that matters. The question and title make it clear that this is only about reopen and undeletion requests. Requesting closure or deletion does not involve exceptional handling - these are done by flags and reviews.
– Nij
Dec 14 '21 at 21:18
• @Nij We'll have to disagree about that. Dec 15 '21 at 2:26
• It seems the wording was changed by quid in the 2018 version of the question, from "posts that may require exceptional handling (including) reopen and undeletion votes" to "posts that may require reopen and undeletion votes". The "etc." was also dropped from the title. Dec 15 '21 at 10:05
• I do think that there are times when having a more permanent record of closures is important, e.g. for questions over a year old with >20 score, say. In these (hypothetical) cases, it shouldn't be up to the community to react, but to the closers to justify themselves in advance. And it makes sense for this thread to handle such exceptional situations. Dec 15 '21 at 10:09
• @user1729 One of the primary goals when I devised the original thread was to collect together (localize) in one thread all such exceptional processing - not only to avoid excessive bumping on meta but also to expose on meta matters that might benefit from further meta discussion (e.g. which won't automatically happen for discussions in a chatroom). That was part of the reason I posted here, since it might spark meta discussion on how to best handle issues like this one. Dec 15 '21 at 10:10
• @user1729 While it is likely it could have been handled just as quickly in CURED, that would have subverted broader meta exposure, which I think is unfair. The (broader) community should have some say on how we handle decisions like this, i.e. when there is almost surely a typo / misprint (and it will be a dupe either way), and it is wasting a lot of (cumulative) community time reading all the comments to understand the context, then I think we should close it asap. But there may be other views on how to best handle this. Hence this post on meta in a thread (originally) designed for such. Dec 15 '21 at 10:27
• @Nij I found some time to elaborate - please see the above two comments. Dec 15 '21 at 10:28

Please undelete How is it sensible to pre-suppose that S(k) is true, if you verified merely the base step? What if S(k) is false? Karl's answer has 5 upvotes, and housed_off_space 1.

• Please do not use posts on meta to call out specific users.
– Xander Henderson Mod
Dec 27 '21 at 22:06
• @XanderHenderson sorry. i didnt know i can't write their names. i just wanted their feedback. but the deleting users appears on the deleted question? so this is public information? Dec 27 '21 at 22:07
• It is one thing to say "Please undelete..." It is entirely different to open your post with "These users deleted a question...".
– Xander Henderson Mod
Dec 27 '21 at 22:08
• Again, evolva How to ask a good question. Uploading images with no thoughts of your own, does not a good question make. Dec 27 '21 at 22:29
• ^^^^^ Errr, now evolva = user. Jan 5 at 18:38
• ^^^^^ Errr, now NNOX Apps Jan 6 at 20:26

Why is $$\sqrt{-1}$$ the only imaginary number we define? was closed as a duplicate of Why don't we define "imaginary" numbers for every "impossibility"? and then deleted. It's not really a duplicate, though. The older question only mentions $$x=x+1$$ and $$x=1/0$$, while the newer question mentions $$\log0$$, $$1/0$$, and $$(-1)!$$ (that's factorial, not exclamation). Please consider voting to undelete, as there are things to discuss in the newer question that are absent in the older one.

Full disclosure – I posted an answer to the question.

• The question cited above seems to be asking about a lot of things. There are numerous questions on Math SE about $1/0$ (for example: math.stackexchange.com/questions/900600), and there are several questions about extending the factorial function. If the question is really about "why can't we just introduce new numbers?", the fact that they give more examples doesn't mean that it isn't a duplicate of the question it was closed as a duplicate of. If they are interested in each example, then the question is too broad. I don't see any reason to undelete or reopen it.
– Xander Henderson Mod
Sep 15 '21 at 13:04
• And, after skimming all of the answers provided to the newer question, it seems to me that any one of them would also be appropriate for the older question. Indeed, your answer is very similar to the one given by Peter Smith (you use the world "field", he says "addition and multiplication", but it is the same idea).
– Xander Henderson Mod
Sep 15 '21 at 13:08

Question closed, reopened, closed again, deleted.

The question had been closed as a duplicate to the older question Is it true that $A^2\succ B^2$ implies that $A\succ B$, but not the converse? and my answer was consequently deleted by a moderator. Although the central statements in both questions are the same, the newer question specifically asked for a solution verification and was also tagged as such. So, it should not be viewed as a duplicate and my answer should be restored as well.

• FYI: since this has been deleted by a moderator, users that are not mods cannot vote to undelete. For the record also: the answer has been converted to a comment; the question was reopened Sep 20 '21 at 23:47
• The question, @Calvin, is closed and deleted. Oct 29 '21 at 16:33
• @amWhy it is now, and I did notice; there is no need for me to leave a further comment on this as the body of the Answer is kept up-to-date. My earlier comment is timestamped, and I have been burned by deleting comments on meta before, so I will leave it. Oct 30 '21 at 4:58

Reopened

question closed for too broad/unfocused even after it was edited to have only 1 question: Whether or not a (cyclic and thus Abelian) group $\mathbb Z_{p^m}$ (prime power) is decomposable into (normal) subgroups

I don't mean to be arrogant, but I think the previous close votes were for old versions. I think the 5th close vote was just trying to help the other 4 close voters whom I couldn't exactly notify to say 'hey ok post is now trimmed to 1 question now please undo close vote'.

• Reopened (but already has one vote to close again). I suggest you take the comments on the question seriously. Oct 28 '21 at 12:18
• @GerryMyerson what did i do/not do? Oct 28 '21 at 12:28
• What you did was you pissed off the one person who was trying to help you. That person knows what he's talking about. Read what he wrote, and think about it until you understand why he wrote it. And, no, I will not engage in further discussion of the matter. Oct 28 '21 at 12:31

The wrong duplicate got closed. Closing was wrong way around.

https://math.stackexchange.com/a/346620 extends Monty Hall problem THE MOST. There are $$n$$ doors, Monty Hall opens $$s$$ doors, and $$t$$ doors are hiding cars.

https://math.stackexchange.com/a/609552 is less general, because $$t=1$$. It presumes merely one car. This should be the one closed as duplicate.

• Closing is for Questions; you have linked to Answers. It should be https://math.stackexchange.com/q/608957/ and https://math.stackexchange.com/q/346613/. Also it seems you were the one who sent the ball rolling 'the wrong way round'? Jan 5 at 11:04
• I think it good just the way it currently is. Jan 5 at 18:33
• @CalvinKhor oops. sorry. i meant the other way then. Jan 6 at 7:33

Undeleted

Please undelete If a changes to b, then doesn't a + d = b? Why a(1 + d) = b?. It assists future readers, because it hankers after clarification of an existing question. Apology if my question is too simple? Is there another Stack Exchange for middle school math?

Many thanks to Prof. Ethan Bolker, who answered the question and who disagreed with the closing of my question.

• Do not delete postings in this thread unless there are serious concerns about them. You can downvote if you do not approve of a request but deletion goes a step too far.
– quid Mod
Dec 29 '21 at 13:36

Closed, reopened, closed again, deleted

This question was closed as a duplicate, but it is narrower than the question of which it is alleged to be a duplicate (and the comments under the question clarify that), as can be seen from the fact that it will admit an answer along the following lines, which would not fit so well with that earlier question.

It asks about the meaning of the notation $$\displaystyle \prod_{i>j}.$$

BEGIN DRAFT

The notation without further context is ambiguous. It can mean:

• $$\displaystyle \prod_{i\,:\,i\,>\,j},$$ so that it is the product over all possible values of $$i$$ that are greater than $$j,$$ with $$j$$ fixed, so that the value of the product depends on $$j,$$ or

• $$\displaystyle \prod_{j\,:\,i\,>\,j}$$ so that it is the product over all possible values of $$j$$ that are less than $$i,$$ with $$i$$ fixed, so that the value of the product depends on $$i,$$ or

• $$\displaystyle \prod_{i,j\,:\,i\,>\,j}$$ so that it is the product over all possible values of $$i$$ and $$j$$ with $$i>j,$$ so that the value of the product does not depend on $$i$$ or $$j.$$

In the first case, $$i$$ is a bound variable and $$j$$ is a free variable.

In the second case, $$j$$ is a bound variable and $$i$$ is a free variable.

In the third case $$i$$ and $$j$$ are both bound.

If the index set is $$\{1,2,3\}$$ then according to the first alternative, we would have \begin{align} & \prod_{i\,:\,i\,>\,1} (a_i-a_1) = (a_2-a_1)(a_3-a_1). & \text{In this case, } j=1. \\[8pt] & \prod_{i\,:\,i\,>\,2} (a_i-a_2) = a_3-a_1. & \text{In this case, } j=2. \\[8pt] & \prod_{i\,:\,i\,>\,3} (a_i-a_2) = 1. & \text{In this case, } j=3. \end{align}

If the index set is $$\{1,2,3\}$$ then according to the second alternative, we would have \begin{align} & \prod_{j\,:\,3\,>\,j} (a_3-a_j) = (a_3-a_1)(a_2-a_1). & \text{In this case, } i=3. \\[8pt] & \prod_{i\,:\,2\,>\,j} a_2-a_j = a_2-a_1. & \text{In this case, } i=2. \\[8pt] & \prod_{i\,:\,1\,>\,j} (a_1-a_j) = 1. & \text{In this case, } i=1. \end{align}

[to be continued]

• Since narrower, it follows under the more general dupe. If this was posted by the asker, here, I'd consider the request, if they specified why they were struggling making the connection. But reopening so you can answer, I'd suggest you instead post this as a specific case under the link to the valid dupe target. In the comments, the OP already acknowledges, between the dupe, and DietrichBurde explanation there, they now understand. It seems like this is more about your desire to answer, than the OP's needing more help. Dec 12 '21 at 21:39
• The post had been reopened and another more suitable duplicate suggestion is in the comment section of the post. Dec 12 '21 at 23:20
• A new duplicate had been suggested, and here the question is basically the same ($\prod_{i<j}(j-i)$). Maybe you could post your answer there? Dec 13 '21 at 10:08
• I agree, @user1729. +1 At the same time, Michael needs to show good faith, given his experience on this site, and knowledge that his answer was merely repeating what had already been said: good faith in searching for duplicates, prior to answering. Dec 15 '21 at 16:42
• "Since narrower, it follows under the more general dupe." That is quite incorrect. Understanding why a special case is in fact a special case can be a substantial question in its own right. Dec 26 '21 at 21:19

Reopened, then deleted by Community User

I tried explaining further and giving an example.

If it's still unclear please let me know why?

• I gave an example and further explained what I want? Why the downvote. Aug 1 '21 at 9:38
• Voting to reopen, but have you asked a question similar to this before? Like on averages of some sort? Also, please continue to clarify questions on the main post as and when required, because I've sort of checked your post and I see a couple of things that might trouble me (for example, it is not clear to me what standard deviation means in the question part) but I'm not really asking for clarification, rather pointing things out that might need them. You've got four reopen votes now. Aug 1 '21 at 14:36
• @TeresaLisbon I made edits. Hopefully, it's better now. Aug 1 '21 at 17:28
• It is better, thanks. Now at least I understand the post better, if not how I'd approach solving it (that's a different matter, of course!) Aug 1 '21 at 22:32

Undeleted, now DELETED

Please undelete This question I asked and answered, and its answers. It is intended as a sequel of this question. Edit the question if possible. Thank you.

• I think Lord Commander's comment is on point: instead of referring to another post maybe you could write down the pattern HERE. You should edit the question to explain the pattern. Jul 16 '21 at 11:53
• As the Question was asked (and answered) by you, you have the primary responsibility for editing the body of the Question in accordance with your meaning. It seems the primary objection is that you ask about establishing "a pattern" for certain indefinite integrals and at the same time ask those willing to help to tell you what that pattern is. Ideally you will add some context around what "pattern" means to you or what descriptions of a pattern would be satisfactory for your purposes. The lack of context is particularly challenging in cases like this. Jul 16 '21 at 16:37
• oh no no no.... no one wants to see that big wall of formulas. I don't see what value this question/answer adds to the site. Aug 4 '21 at 11:11

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

Is Kumar Eswaran's proposed proof of the Riemann Hypothesis correct?

I understand that it was closed on account of being too broad for math.se. However, the existing comments indicate that a clear answer should exist.

Moreover, the question is in relation to a somewhat significant mathematical claim which has generated a lot of interest. So, it should be useful as a reference and a target for duplicate questions.

Therefore, I believe that undeleting or even reopening the question might be worth considering.

• This was discussed in the CURED chat room here. Jul 5 '21 at 19:08
• I don't think this is a question of broadness or duplication. The point is, that the question is inherently off-topic, being a question of the form "is a certain paper correct/incorrect", and because the content of the question is not going to change with edits, it is landing up in this delete/undelete war. That reason is stronger than either broadness or duplication, to the extent that similar questions will be painted with the same "off-topic" brush. I did lean on the "undelete but close" stance (your arguments supporting the "undelete"), but right now I'm literally undecided. Sep 19 '21 at 6:59

Not sure if this belongs here, but Community accidentally deleted this question that I answered:

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3977648/how-can-i-find-the-mass-of-the-pencil-cylinder/3977750#3977750

(for +10k)

• Already been asked again here math.stackexchange.com/questions/3979061/… Jan 9 '21 at 19:17
• That was not a mistake. The question had a negative score and was closed, and the answer was neither accepted nor upvoted. Thus the question was automatically deleted.
– Xander Henderson Mod
Jan 10 '21 at 13:40

Apologia for asking a downvoted question, but it feels wasteful for the two upvoted answers to disappear. My question is unique because it asks about the intuition behind defining $$0.\overline{9}=1$$. The author in my post, Ellenberg, proved this in the pages previous to that in my post.

1. https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4156178? It was automatically deleted 8 hours ago by Community♦ because it got 1 downvote.
• For better or worse, there are subjects around here that are sore spots for the community and have higher standards for questions regarding them: $.999\dots=1$ is one of these. I think there's potentially an interesting question in there (what do we mean when we say two numbers are equal?), but your presentation is not getting at that, and I'd like to see some improvement before voting to undelete. Jun 4 '21 at 18:40
• @KReiser Thanks for giving me some hope. Can you please edit my question? I don't know what you want to get at. You mention "there's potentially an interesting question in there", but didn't I ask it already? I don't know what you mean exactly? Jun 5 '21 at 1:23
• Please make one request per Answer (as stated in the Qusetion body). Also it is possible that someone put the downvote precisely to get it auto-deleted Jul 3 '21 at 8:27
• The problem with your questions is that they are not so much about mathematics as about what a particular author (Jordan Ellenberg, who is that rare combination of fine writer and first-rate mathematician) means by a particular pair of sentences in a book written for a general, non-mathematical audience. (cont.) Jul 3 '21 at 11:16
• However, a partial answer to your Riemann-Hypothesis-by-definition analogue to "defining" $0.999\ldots$ to be $1$ can be found in a sentence in Ellenberg's Slate article which your question linked to: "Cauchy said, we should simply define the value of the infinite sum to be 1. And then he worked very hard to prove that this choice of definition didn’t cause horrible contradictions to pop up elsewhere." (boldface added for emphasis). Jul 3 '21 at 11:17

Deleted

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4211826? As it is, it's terse and intelligible. What more "details or clarity" do you need?

• It would be good to add the main question statement; maybe you could explain why you think it does not overcount; and a more minor point perhaps use simpler words than expatiate (had to check a dictionary to understand you) Jul 30 '21 at 5:34
• I think the issue with the question is that I have to click on the link to understand what is going on. So try and summarise what's going on, so say something like: "I was reading an answer to a question here, and would appreciate some help in understanding some steps. The question is as follows: (quote question, include link). User String solved this by (summarise their approach, link to their answer). However, they said (current question as it is)". This way, users get an idea of what is needed before they click on the link. Jul 30 '21 at 8:47

Reopened, Reclosed, Deleted

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4342155/what-makes-a-number-big

This question is perfectly clear but not expressed in a way in which someone knowledgeable in the language of mathematics would express it. I can't help suspecting that the reason for the "close" votes is either the poster's lack of knowledge of standard jargon or some blind spot in the minds of those who voted to close it prevented them from understanding it.

• I see you answered the question, as well, @Michael. It is considered good practice to reveal one's only involvement in a question they advocate for reopening/undeleting. Dec 27 '21 at 0:33
• @amWhy : Why? My "involvement" is only as someone who responded to the question. I am not responsible for anything at all about the content of the question. Dec 27 '21 at 2:53
• @Michael: The reason to reveal your vested interest in the Question, having answered it and thereby gotten upvotes and (in this case) Accepted Answer reputation, is to be honest with Readers who may decide if your position on reopening is to be taken at face value. Dec 27 '21 at 5:49

Pls undelete and reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4347582.

I edited my post a second time in accordance with FShrike's advice.

Because a moderator deleted my post, I cannot UNdelete the post. Can you still review my edit?

• There is still some things that I'd like you to remove from your post (there is no need to add anything, as I see it). I have mentioned these as comments under your main post. Please attempt further edits. I feel for your daughter, but it is not appropriate to include such sensitive details in your post, given they may deflect from the original question and actually delay the service your daughter receives from this website. Jan 4 at 10:10
• @Delete-voter. Requests ("answers") in this thread should not be deleted, e.g. see this moderator comment. This is a longstanding policy. Jan 5 at 13:51

Deleted

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4217023? What's wrong with it? Undeniably, the multiple commenters understood my question perfectly.

• Personally, I don't understand what it is that you are after (the question is unclear), and I fear that the structure of the question makes me think that it is too broad (in general, questions of the form "Is X related to Y?" are vague, open to interpretation, and not really appropriate for Math SE. I would also argue that the two commenters didn't really understand the question (one pointed out that they have a mnemonic for remember stars and bars computation, which has nothing to do with fencepost errors; the other only stated that they make fencepost errors).
– Xander Henderson Mod
Aug 13 '21 at 15:35
• If I were asked this as an "interview" question, i.e. where some valuable stake was involved, the best I could do is say, No (and explain why). You might have something more substantative in mind than the observation that the bars in "stars-and-bars" look like fence posts, but I recall from seeing your post before thinking that observation itself is too superficial to meet my threshold for context. Aug 14 '21 at 2:28

DELETED

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3968820/does-the-binomial-expansion-of-a-negative-prime-number-yield-its-equal-and-oppo

https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/32970/

• I can't really see what to improve in that post. Unfortunately the question is complete : "make sense of something apparently mathematical said by somebody and written on a blackboard". It is not a bad question in terms of site rules, but the problem is it truly looks arbitrary to half the people who read it, so that results in a downvote for a question that is apparently of no use and insignificant. Anyway, voting to undelete, but I don't know what is going to be an answer at all, let alone a constructive one, from the discussion on the question. Jan 12 '21 at 5:57

Deleted, Deleted

1. https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4159730/933737. This was closed for "needs details or clarity". But isn't my question detailed enough? What do you need?

2. https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4157393/933737. This was closed for "opinion-based." I made question factual.

• ‘Clarity’ can be lost when too much detail is provided. Jun 5 '21 at 1:46
• In the future, please create a new answer for each post you want handled. Regarding the second question, you have, as far as I can tell, completely changed the question twice. This creates a moving target for answerers. Please don't do this. I have rolled back the post to the original question asked.
– Xander Henderson Mod
Jun 5 '21 at 3:52
• The other post suffers from the same problem.
– Xander Henderson Mod
Jun 5 '21 at 3:52

Deleted

Mike Earnest's comment appears to jump the gun.

This seems like an example of the XY problem. You are asking about how you can use method X to solve problem Y, when method X is actually useless for problem Y, and all you actually care about is solving problem Y. Because the literal question "How can I use X to solve Y?" has no answer, you'll get no help, whereas if you had just asked "How can I solve Y?", you would have gotten help.

I tendered reasons why I think method X can solve problem Y. If the answer is that "method X is actually useless for problem Y", then this should be an answer to my question, and my question shouldn't be closed.

• The Question was posted on July 17 and the Comments posted at that time or next day are reflective of the concern that it is a jumble of ideas, not merely that what you want to do ("transmorgify $\binom{m}{r-k}$ into $k$") can't be done, but that it isn't clear what you are asking. Potentially you have in mind a definite goal, but you failed to edit the body of the Question for more than a week after the concern with clarity was noted. Do you now have an intention of revising the post? Jul 28 '21 at 4:34
• @hardmath "Do you now have an intention of revising the post?" Yes, as always. I apologize for my confusing writing. Don't hesitate to edit my post. Jul 28 '21 at 5:43
• @hardmath wrote that it isn't clear what you are asking. So hardmath can't edit your post. Only someone who knows what you really mean to ask can edit your question. And the person most likely to know what you really mean, is you. Jul 28 '21 at 7:48
• Responding to "If the answer is that "method X is actually useless for problem Y", then this should be an answer to my question," the problem is that we cannot definitively prove that method X is useless for problem Y in this case, especially since it is so unclear what method X is. Jul 30 '21 at 0:24

Reopened, Reclosed, Deleted

I would like to reopen the following question:

Can We Define A Measure $$\mu$$ Which Follows All My Requirments?

If not, please explain in detail what is unclear or what cannot be improved.

Deleted

The following meta post is obviously clear and detailed; however, since it contains some criticism a few people dislike, it was closed wrongly (This reminds me of Galileo affair):

Can busy people moderate the community well?

Let us not allow a few users to dominate this community.

• Generally, and especially in mathematics, when you start emphasizing the word obviously you should take a step back and work out why it is so obvious to you and no-one else. Jul 25 '21 at 7:19
• Generally, when someone compares him/herself to Galileo, he or she should take a few steps back, and consider how this will appear to others. Jul 25 '21 at 13:31
• Quoting the guidelines of this reopen-undelete thread: "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." Jul 25 '21 at 16:14