17
$\begingroup$

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.

  • 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 the thread that served as a model:

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – user33907 Apr 7 at 3:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – Matt Samuel Apr 7 at 20:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Apr 8 at 14:47

37 Answers 37

9
$\begingroup$

Reopened, reclosed, reopened again, closed once again, and reopened once again

Please consider reopening this Question, which was closed for lack of context.

Yet the original opening paragraph gives the following context:

I have a young group of kids (30) playing soccer and they need to be put into 6 teams of 5 players for each round of matches. All 6 teams play at the same time on adjoining fields.

I make a point of bringing this to the Community's attention because there has been something of a historical pattern with these kinds of problems. The asker has (or claims to have) a real world motivation for asking about a certain kind of block design. The Question has a definite mathematical formulation and solution, often one that is not obvious without a certain amount of trial and error computation (though occasionally the literature provides an answer).

None of the five close voters left a Comment to record what in the way of additional context would improve the Question to their satisfaction.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Most combinatorial design questions require decades of research and computational time to answer, so it infuriates me when questions like these are closed with a comment like "well, what have you tried?". Presented with such a hard problem in real life, most mathematicians would be stumped, let alone laymen. $\endgroup$ – Mike Earnest May 6 at 17:48
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MikeEarnest: Right, a typical user might well not know how to tackle problems that they have a real world motivation for. I want to see their context, but "what have you tried" is not the gold standard here (though this user did suggest they'd thought about complete block designs because they said it wasn't what they wanted). $\endgroup$ – hardmath May 6 at 18:40
9
$\begingroup$

Reopened, Re-closed (by a mod), and Reopened again with context edit reinstated

Please consider reopening Any criteria for a category to have all connected limits?. This is a very natural question about whether there is an analogue of certain well-known basic theorems in category theory in a less well-known context. The context in the original question was quite clear to anyone familiar with the area but was only in a brief parenthetical at the end of the question. I have expanded on this and improved the presentation a bit to make it more accessible to non-experts.

It seems to me that this is exactly the sort of question that this site was built for: questions that may naturally occur to many people (not just some exercise that is of no particular interest), do not have obvious or "standard" answers that can be found in every textbook on the subject, and by having an answer here the answer will be easily findable with a search engine.

[Disclosure: I have answered the question.]

$\endgroup$
11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The question was appropriately closed for lacking context. You then edited the question to insert material which is not clearly the product of the original asker's intentions. This version of the question was reopened. As the edits were inappropriate, they were rolled back. I have reclosed the question. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 8 at 12:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For future reference, please read the guidelines on rewrites and context edits. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 8 at 12:53
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Reading the guidelines, it says that one can clarify the phrasing and add relavant basic definitions, which looks to me like what you have done. In particular no ‘attempt’ was added. So, is it that too much context was added so that the question was changed fundamentally? $\endgroup$ – Calvin Khor Jul 8 at 16:41
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @CalvinKhor: Indeed, I was trying to follow the guidelines and it is not clear at all to me how I violated them. I have messaged the mods to ask for clarification. (And if this edit violates the intended meaning of the guidelines, I think the guidelines themselves need some significant edits to make that clearer.) $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Jul 8 at 16:42
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ +1, voted to reopen - this should be reopened and Eric Wofsey's edit should be restored. It seems like exactly the sort of context-adding edit that would be appropriate under the guidelines: it added a relevant definition, some simple background and motivation, and one small related theorem of similar level to those already mentioned by the OP, exactly as suggested. If this isn't acceptable, what is? $\endgroup$ – KReiser Jul 8 at 18:36
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ Overly zealous application of guidelines leads to removal of significant mathematical content from m.se. Again. Sad. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 8 at 23:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Searching in CURED for this question gives a few hits: chat.stackexchange.com/search?q=4164403&room=2165 (Also, to be fair, the content has not (yet) been removed) $\endgroup$ – Calvin Khor Jul 9 at 1:09
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ Crucially the decision to rollback the edits made by Eric to improve the Question was not made by a moderator but by a user who espouses the view that no one should be allowed to improve the body of the Question except the OP. I know this from personal experience of adding material from Comments left by the OP into the body of the Question, and being "told off" for doing so. But it is not in the spirit of this Community to judge improvements so harshly. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jul 9 at 2:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The other problem is with an inactive OP and how we could work out editing posts of inactive/suspended/removed OPs. Perhaps reasking the question with context and self-answering is a possibility, as was recently done on meta. This would be my suggestion in that case : then find the OP of the original question and redirect them to your question. $\endgroup$ – Teresa Lisbon Jul 9 at 6:55
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ The situation with this question is shocking to me. Eric's edits were fairly minor and a clear improvement. They did not change the intent or core content of the question at all - but they did greatly improve the presentation. To me, they seem squarely in line with the guidelines. The OP has even signaled approval in the comments. I do not understand the motivation to roll back the question to its earlier, lower quality form... $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Jul 9 at 20:49
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @AlexKruckman It's not shocking to me—it's yet another example of the moderators/power users of MathSE enforcing the rules inconsistently to how they are written. The fact that mathematicians do this, given that one could argue the entire point of the last two centuries of mathematics has been to systematically root out inconsistency, is however bewildering. $\endgroup$ – Jack Gallagher Jul 9 at 22:49
5
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

Please undelete Functional Analysis: Finding finite functions over different norms as the question asker self-deleted his/her own question one day after receiving an answer.

$\endgroup$
1
5
$\begingroup$

I want to know why the reason for closure of this question has been given as:

Questions about choosing a course, academic program, career path, etc. are off-topic. Such questions should be directed to those employed by the institution in question, or other qualified individuals who know your specific circumstances.

I do not see any reason for closure of this question.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ The close reason is, I think, nonsense. However, the question does (in my opinion---note that I say this not as a moderator, but as a disinterested third party) deserve to be closed. It lacks context. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Mar 2 at 23:44
  • $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson: Well, in that case am I permitted to delete the question because it is not useful for anyone anymore? And secondly, can you explain what more context could I have added in there? I didn't understand the statement of the question itself, so what ideas should I have been added there? Note that I know how to ask good questions on this site, as you can see my profile. $\endgroup$ – Harry Potter Mar 2 at 23:47
  • $\begingroup$ See How to ask a good question. In your case, I would suggest that the problem seems to depend on the definitions of "cofactor" and "minor". Quoting those definitions in your question would likely help to provide context (of course, a careful reading of those definitions might also clear up the confusion). $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Mar 2 at 23:55
  • $\begingroup$ I should also point out, again, that when I say that the question should be closed for lack of context, I am merely expressing my opinion. I am not expressing the opinion of the moderating team, nor making a statement about site policy. I left the question in the state it was in an hour ago, but with a close reason that makes more sense. Other users may disagree, and may feel that the question ought to be reopened. That said, providing additional context will make it easier for others to vote to reopen. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Mar 2 at 23:57
  • $\begingroup$ The question has been deleted. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Mar 24 at 22:34
5
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

RKHS of functions vanishing at single point

Asker deleted the question soon after receiving an answer. The question is homework-like, but the asker showed a decent effort in my view.

I didn't vote to undelete since the answer is mine, and I wanted to see what others think.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ What I think is, we don't like it when a user deletes a question for no apparent reason after there has been an answer. I voted to undelete. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson May 11 at 8:55
5
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please consider reopening Looking for a Simple Proof of the Divergence of the Prime Harmonic Series. It is a natural question of wide interest and has a very clear implied context, of a teacher who wishes to present an elementary proof of a famous theorem to calculus-level students. It is not clear to me what additional context the close voters would have wanted or how the site would be better off without this question and others like it.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not sure if there is a canonical post on this series yet. One candidate is here, another one with an interesting proof here. It seems that one should make a canonical one by merging several posts. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char May 24 at 7:30
5
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

I'd like to tentatively nominate A structural view to the power set axiom: Is this axiom really justifiable? for undeletion (admission: I have an answer there). It was a fine question.

Re: the "tentatively" above, I'm not actually sure that undeletion is possible/ethical: at a glance it looks like what may have happened is that the OP deleted their account and requested that all of their posts be deleted as well. If that's the case - I'm not able to tell since I lack mod tools - then I don't think undeletion would be appropriate, but since I'm not sure it is (given that there it's not locked, so undeletion is possible) I'd like to bring it up.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ How did it get deleted in the first place? $\endgroup$ – user33907 May 24 at 20:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Onir It says "deleted by community." I'm not exactly sure what that means. My best guess is what I state above, in which case unfortunately undeletion would probably be unethical, but on the off-chance that there could be a different reason I decided to bring it up anyways. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber May 24 at 20:13
  • $\begingroup$ oh, but I don't think you can get all of your stuff deleted just because you want it. $\endgroup$ – user33907 May 24 at 20:19
  • $\begingroup$ @Onir I recall some confusion on this point; I'm certainly not sure myself. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber May 24 at 20:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ From what I can see from the post timeline, the user was destroyed and as a result all of their content was deleted (see deleted vs destroyed on the main Meta). The same post implies it is unlikely that a user can request their account be destroyed - it seems to be more applicable for spammers or other problem users. I don't think you need to be too worried about the ethics of undeleting here. $\endgroup$ – KReiser May 24 at 21:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Remember that any post is legally the intellectual property of the SE corporate overlords, and not the property to the person who posted it. While users may delete content, there is no legal or ethical problem with the community undeleting it if it is considered useful. In this case, there is even less of an issue, as the user account no longer exists. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson May 24 at 21:48
4
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

https://math.stackexchange.com/a/3980921/43608

This is a deleted new answer to an old question (from february 2019), by a user that has been on MSE for 1 year and 10 months, but does not seem to have questions or answers yet.

The deleted answer is short, arguably too short, but would be at least a good hint in the correct direction (it was for me, when I tried to figure out whether to vote to delete or not in review queue).

The question is ambiguous, as noticed by the two answers already here, but I think the new one has the correct interpretation (that the coefficients $a,b,c$ are independent of $n$), since it leads easily to a unique solution, as expected.

I believe the deleted answer is correct while the two undeleted ones are not, and thus deserves to be undeleted.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Looks to be undeleted now. $\endgroup$ – Teresa Lisbon Jan 12 at 5:53
4
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I asked a question about an identity involving large uniform random numbers here: Prove that $\lim_{m \to \infty} (\lceil m U \rceil -mU ) \sim U(0,1)$. The question is part of a larger theme of questions around proving a general result about point processes. I intend to write a paper on this topic and want to link these questions in the paper. It becomes harder to link questions that are closed like this and I also want to be able to add answers there in case I find a better, shorter way to prove the result in the future.

It was my mistake for not adding enough context, but I've done that now and linked to the other question. Can someone please re-open the question or let me know what other context I can provide to make it acceptable?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please consider reopening Is there a metrizable topology on tempered distributions for which sequential convergence is pointwise?. This question was originally unclear but the asker has clarified what they meant. The question was also difficult to understand due to (I assume) a language barrier combined with some imprecise phrasing, and I've cleaned it up to be much clearer.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Three days ago, Asymptotic expansion of $\sum_{k=1}^n {n \choose k} (-1)^k \frac 1 {1-x^k} $ received three close votes due to lack of context. Since then, the author added clarification and context. Yesterday, there were two close votes arising from a review, and those closed the question. However, I think that this poster has shown a decent effort to improve their post.

The question is interesting and I request that this question be reopened.

I apologize that I forgot to mention that I have answered this question.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

An answer of mine to Resources, references, or examples for logics with finitely many sentences was deleted via review.

May I kindly ask to reconsider this deletion. My answer relates to the observation that finite problems are always trivial in the context of computational complexity (see, e.g., the accepted answer here). The OP requested some clarification under my post, and I would have gladly given this clarification but my answer was already deleted then.

EDIT: It seems that I could undelete the question myself and provide the clarification. Is this the recommended way to proceed?

EDIT: I took the liberty of undeleting myself.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted and reopened

Please consider undeleting and reopening Is an ideal finitely generated if its radical is finitely generated?. This is a very natural question to which there are no immediately obvious counterexamples, and it has received a couple nice examples in answers.

It seems to me that this is exactly the sort of question that this site was built for: questions that may naturally occur to many people (not just some exercise that is of no particular interest), do not have obvious or "standard" answers that can be found in every textbook on the subject, and by having an answer here the answer will be easily findable with a search engine.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please consider reopening this question

Find the range of values of $θ$, such that $θ\in[0,2π]$ for which $(\cosθ,\sinθ)$ lies inside a triangle

this question is completely understandable as all the equations are now written in math JAX also it might have happened that people who were unable to solve the question have reported it. This question is from a verified text and I can prove that the question is 100% correct and it's the case of false reporting.

At last, I request once again to please consider reopening this question

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

undeleted, reopened

Please undelete the following question:

Union of closed convex sets

The question and (my - to be fair) answer was highly upvoted. The question was closed/deleted for lack of context. I edited the question to include some context: The claim seems to be true in situations one can immediately think of. It is one example of a claim on convex sets that seems to be true, but isn't.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Re-opened.

Please reopen Less common probabilities and expected values related to the coupon collector problem. It is falsely closed as a duplicate. Though the question brought in the title is indeed very often it is not asked in the body of OP.

Particularly the question asks about the expected value of collected unique cards after a certain number of trials, not about the expected number of trials to collect a certain number of unique cards. Though the former question is probably have been already asked and answered here, it is certainly not that one which was linked as "original".

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What you say about not being a duplicate is true, but this is so because the OP asks multiple questions. By itself that is not a fatal flaw (the problems are closely related), but the Question provides no context. It appears to me to be a "pass through assignment". If you like the Question enough, perhaps leave a comment for the new user to provide context, or repost the problem with your own context. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Feb 10 at 16:46
  • $\begingroup$ @hardmath OP indeed asks multiple questions. But none of the questions is asked or answered in the alleged "original". I would not complain if the question was closed because of "providing no context". This would stimulate the author to correct it. But the given link certainly will not help him or her to find the correct answers. $\endgroup$ – user Feb 10 at 16:52
  • $\begingroup$ @hardmath That would be great. $\endgroup$ – user Feb 10 at 17:01
  • $\begingroup$ After a bit of research I chose one of the coupon-collectors Questions that asks about the probability distribution aspect, and which not only has a decent Answer but also links to many other Questions of a similar nature. Of course the expected value problems are easier than working out the probability distributions (after $x$ cards bought), but the OP has done literally nothing to motivate writing out a new Answer. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Feb 10 at 23:57
  • $\begingroup$ @hardmath The given link is of course very interesting but it does not address the asked questions, neither do the links inside. Though I agree that it can help to point out the direction (if the asker has a solid background). $\endgroup$ – user Feb 11 at 8:43
2
$\begingroup$

Re-opened.

Please reopen:

A Basic Limit From Exponentials

I believe this is not a duplicate of How does one prove that $e$ exists? which was why it was closed.

The question from the first link asks why the limit $\ \displaystyle\lim_{x \to 0} \frac{2^x-1}{x}\ $ exists. Whereas the question from the second link asks to prove that there exists a number $a$ such that $\ \displaystyle\lim_{h \to 0} \frac{a^h - 1}{h} = 1.$

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4074358.

I have also voted for closing the question as a duplicate but retracted the vote after the question was edited.

It is clear from the content of the edited question that its issue was a search for an error in the OP solution (and not for a correct way of solving the problem). In this sense it is certainly not a duplicate of the linked question. In any case as soon as the link to the alleged duplicate was given OP stated that (s)he is interested only in finding the own error.

I should admit that the linked question also started with an error (a different one) and this error was not addressed in any answer (but in one of the comments).

Quite generally I would assume that the most questions aimed on search of own error (or solution verification) cannot be treated as a duplicate.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ After you cast the reopen vote, the post automatically went into the reopen review queue. If you wait until the review complete, you might not need to post the request here (This is mentioned in the "guidelines" of this thread"). $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Mar 24 at 15:03
  • $\begingroup$ I agree and will next time follow the guidelines. Thank you for pointing my attention to this. $\endgroup$ – user Mar 24 at 15:07
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please consider reopening Example of a map of coverings which is not a covering map, if the base space is not locally path-connected. This is a natural question asking for an example to show that a certain technical hypothesis is needed in a well-known basic theorem in the theory of covering spaces. The original version of the question was missing a crucial assumption and as a result didn't make much sense, which I believe was the reason the question got its first few close votes.

It seems to me that this is exactly the sort of question that this site was built for: questions that may naturally occur to many people (not just some exercise that is of no particular interest), do not have obvious or "standard" answers that can be found in every textbook on the subject, and by having an answer here the answer will be easily findable with a search engine.

[Disclosure: I have answered the question.]

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually I was about to post the request, and you are correct in evaluating my close vote there. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Jul 20 at 16:52
1
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I think it is sufficiently answered by the other post, even if it is not an exact duplicate. $\endgroup$ – Mike Earnest Mar 25 at 0:18
1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted

Please undelete https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3998706/290189 as the question asker has self-deleted his/her own question a few hours after receiving an answer from a trusted user.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Trusted users should be trusted not to answer copy-paste homework questions. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jan 26 at 3:46
1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, redeleted

Please undelete https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3997519/290189 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.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ For future reference, "The asker deleted the question immediately after getting answers" is something that may be worth raising a flag over. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jan 25 at 23:00
1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

Please consider undeleting this meta post.

I don't have enough reps to see the post now, so I might miss the reason why the OP deletes the post. But the question they ask are quite legit and there are some useful discussion in the comment.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm. I’m not so sure if I should vote to undelete as it was deleted by OP themselves. (In general I use far fewer review type votes on meta...) I guess it was due to the overall negative reaction. If you want I can copy the comments somewhere, if you wait for me to reach a computer $\endgroup$ – Calvin Khor Jun 30 at 9:12
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, @CalvinKhor It's not that I particular want to see the discussion again. I just feel that that is a good question to ask (it's a shame I had to downvote it) and the discussion there should be useful to stay. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Jun 30 at 11:00
  • $\begingroup$ Well, here is the discussion anyway: imgur.com/a/kWBXfYN as you can see, there is one undelete vote atm. $\endgroup$ – Calvin Khor Jun 30 at 11:05
  • $\begingroup$ You could of course ask the question again yourself? $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jul 2 at 8:54
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729us yes, but the discussion is already there. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Jul 2 at 11:51
  • $\begingroup$ I've voted to undelete because it's worth resuming discussion on this topic. $\endgroup$ – Toby Mak Jul 22 at 11:24
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, reopened, reclosed (as duplicate)

Yesterday I posted this this question. When I checked it last night, it had the two sound-looking answers you see. I woke up today to find it had been not just closed but completely deleted. This seems to me completely preposterous. It's pretty clearly not a homework question, but a reasonably deep integral computation that I had no idea how to begin. I'd be happy to provide more "context" (1. unnecessary though that evidently was for the people who answered it, and 2. as if the identity isn't interesting in its own right) but the post is completely deleted and so I was given no opportunity to do so in anything like this site's notion of a timely manner. Is there some way I may be allowed to provide the all-important context in order to reopen the question so that I can at least reward the people who helped me?

$\endgroup$
19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So you can just go to the deleted question (which you can get to from deleted recent questions in your profile) and copy the address from there an users with >10K rep can view it and possibly vote to undelete it. Posting an image here with no link makes anyone but a moderator unable to help you. $\endgroup$ – Matt Samuel Mar 31 at 23:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MattSamuel I see, thanks. I've added the link $\endgroup$ – Tim kinsella Mar 31 at 23:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can't you edit the deleted post? Asking for undeletion before improving your post (and not mentioning the fact that there's a linked duplicate in the comments) seems premature. $\endgroup$ – KReiser Apr 1 at 0:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ still seems a bit of a shame that the very nice answers will be lost $\endgroup$ – Tim kinsella Apr 1 at 0:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ just for the record though, it is as i thought -- i get the "This post has been deleted -- no more edits are allowed" when i try to edit it. @KReiser $\endgroup$ – Tim kinsella Apr 1 at 0:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The post has been undeleted (it is still closed. Perhaps it should be better closed as a duplicate) $\endgroup$ – Calvin Khor Apr 1 at 1:50
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Thanks you for improving the question - it is much better now. I voted to both close and delete this question at the time because it was simply the statement of a question without any context or effort or anything. I would have acted similarly if you had been a new user, but my actions were particularly heartfelt because you are not a new user, and instead have been here for almost 10 years and have picked up 5k rep. points. So you surely must have picked up on what is expected of a question by now... $\endgroup$ – user1729 Apr 1 at 10:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @user1729 I don’t know if this is the proper place to discuss this, but since you’ve made the same comment twice now I’ll respond by saying that I and a non-negligible minority of other users of the site don’t share your expectations that a post contain “context” or exhibitions of failed attempts when those things aren’t likely to help people answering it. My post is a good example. You say the post is now “much better,” but I think you’d be hard pressed to explain how what I’ve added about resolvents of Brownian motion would make it easier for someone to help me. $\endgroup$ – Tim kinsella Apr 1 at 10:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Timkinsella Its not about someone being better able to help you, per se, although you have now given the book where they could look it up in (which is helpful when people misquote a problem, or the problem requires a result proven earlier in the book, etc.). There are other reasons for providing context too, including basic politeness, but also: We live in a world where the vast majority of exams are not in exam halls (for example, my uni has 24 hr take-home exams), so giving some context and providing some effort stops your question getting lumped in with the obvious cheaters. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Apr 1 at 10:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That is totally leaving aside your decision to vote to completely delete the question so soon after it was asked for the reason that it lacks context, a reason that calls for the OP to improve the post which he cannot do when the post is deleted @user1729 $\endgroup$ – Tim kinsella Apr 1 at 10:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Timkinsella Sure. I would have been more lenient if you hadn't been here for almost 10 years with lots of rep. points. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Apr 1 at 11:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As one of the original close voters I should probably declare that I had the exact same thought process regarding voting to close. There so many questions that it's not effective for those that "stand on their own merits" to be vetted for quality by non-experts (e.g. experts in other fields), and the close voting is democratized. Writing for Math.SE is different from writing for a book. If you think there is a better (and scalable) alternative to separating the wheat from the chaff other than adding context, you should try to post a question on meta to persuade the majority. $\endgroup$ – Calvin Khor Apr 3 at 5:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CalvinKhor If “wheat” = “questions that very probably didn’t come from a freshman calculus exam”, then I don’t really know what level of expertise you’re talking about. Behind this fixation on “context” and documentation of failed attempts I see no actual criteria for judging the quality of questions beyond an extremely crude correlation with the mere length of the post. $\endgroup$ – Tim kinsella Apr 4 at 6:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For instance, I wonder how a user might ask the same question I asked if it were merely posed to him, with no context, by a classmate? He has no context to offer you; are you going to believe he’s a curious student asking in good faith? Or are you going to fire off a passive aggressive comment about effort and expectations and delete his post? Seems like a tough choice if you’re philosophically opposed to actually thinking for a few moments about questions before you judge their quality. $\endgroup$ – Tim kinsella Apr 4 at 6:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user1729 Frankly I wonder whether that’s true, and not just because you explicitly said the opposite in your first comment above. $\endgroup$ – Tim kinsella Apr 4 at 6:33
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I'm not sure why this question was closed. I feel like the OP is maybe slightly unclear about what possible methods there might be for finding the coefficients, but the problem they are trying to solve is clear and answerable (It is upvoted and has an accepted answer (Disclosure: The accepted answer is mine).

Can we determine higher powers of a matrix in terms of lower powered matrices?

$\endgroup$
0
-1
$\begingroup$

Closed and Deleted

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4021245/caching-in-magma?noredirect=1#comment8308788_4021245

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.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ 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". $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Feb 13 at 19:54
  • $\begingroup$ @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). $\endgroup$ – Morgan Rodgers Feb 13 at 19:56
  • $\begingroup$ I've revised my comment. Also, note that this has come up before: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22052/… $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Feb 13 at 20:02
  • $\begingroup$ Also relevant: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/17119/… (takeaway: "being software used by mathematicians, Magma questions are on-topic here.") $\endgroup$ – Morgan Rodgers Feb 20 at 20:16
  • $\begingroup$ The question has been deleted. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Mar 24 at 22:35
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Mar 25 at 5:33
  • $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – Morgan Rodgers Mar 25 at 5:51
-1
$\begingroup$

Please, reopen this question length-of-a-split-complex-number. The question currently has zero votes, so people voted to close but did not downvote.

It had an accepted upvoted answer when was deleted. It can be usful to various people, interested in the topic. The only problem I see with the question, is possibly that in the title the word "length" should be changed to "magnitude".

When the question was deleted, I had lost 35 reps, because my accepted answer got deleted as well.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The problem with the question is explained in the close reason - it is not about a miss-understanding in the title, but instead a lack of context. The OP needs to edit the question to explain why the question is relevant to us and our community, etc. etc. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jun 23 at 13:47
  • $\begingroup$ Question was closed 5 April 2021, deleted 16 May 2021. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jun 23 at 23:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also, I should point out that the OP here is still active - according to their profile, they were on the site "20 hours ago" as I type this - so they are not an absent owner. They can improve their question, they are just choosing not to. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jun 24 at 10:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I just looked at the question: It is also unclearly written. The right hand side of the key formula that OP is asking about is $𝑟𝑒^{𝑗\theta}$, which, at least nominally, is undefined until OP explains what the exponential is supposed to mean in the context of split complex numbers. In your answer you decided to interpret this formula geometrically, using the Lorentzian geometry (via generalized polar coordinates). OP might not even realize the potential disconnect between the undefined analytical formula and its geometric interpretation. $\endgroup$ – Moishe Kohan Jun 26 at 16:54
-2
$\begingroup$

Here is a post which was most likely deleted for being inactive and has at least one upvote. I have edited the question before despite the negative recognition it has gotten before editing. Here are the details about the question. Here is the

link

How it looks in case it is hidden and it being shown in my activity log:enter image description here

enter image description here

As you can see, this has cost me some 6 reputation and I suspect “Community” did it. This question is at least interesting and kind of liked despite the downvotes. Please help me reopen it and tell me suggestions for how to improve it so that I can learn from my mistake.

Thanks, I appreciate the help. Tell me how to be better next time please.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ The question was automatically deleted because it had a negative score, no answers, and little activity. It did not generate interest when it was in its undeleted state, hence I don't see a compelling reason to undelete it now. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jun 12 at 1:04
  • $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson Perhaps, there is a way to improve this question? I have had a closed question with a score of -1 be reopened and later closed here. Anyways, thanks for the advice. Please tell me if there is an alternative option besides pushing this question away. $\endgroup$ – Tyma Gaidash Jun 12 at 1:31
  • $\begingroup$ I have not read the question, and have very little interest in it---it appears to be from a part of mathematics that I know little about. I can offer no suggestions, though I do note that many people offered advice in the comments. At the end of the day, it appears that your question did not generate interest, so it was automatically deleted. I think that your best bet is to simply move on. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jun 12 at 1:47
  • $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson I see, I will then accept and move on. I will leave it that some recommendations, which you compiled into a chat room, were to put more focus on the question, so I significantly shortened the question as such. I will again move on and thanks again. $\endgroup$ – Tyma Gaidash Jun 12 at 1:50
-3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, reopened, closed again

Please consider undeleting my question:

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.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This was discussed in the CURED chat room here. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jul 5 at 19:08
-3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted

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.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jul 16 at 11:53
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jul 16 at 16:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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