21
$\begingroup$

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:

$\endgroup$
4
  • 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. $\endgroup$ Apr 7 at 20:25
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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 Mod
    Apr 8 at 14:47
  • $\begingroup$ “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…” — I am not sure but I think this is no longer the case since the revamping of the review queues. $\endgroup$ 2 days ago

52 Answers 52

1
2
-1
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ 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 Mod
    Jan 25 at 23:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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? $\endgroup$ Jul 30 at 0:14
-1
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
9
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ krrchmrtz? (Gesundheit?) $\endgroup$ Aug 12 at 13:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ Aug 12 at 13:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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.... $\endgroup$ Aug 12 at 13:42
  • $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ Aug 12 at 13:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm always grateful to learn to easy way (from mistakes of others)! $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Aug 12 at 19:29
  • $\begingroup$ @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! $\endgroup$ Aug 12 at 19:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TeresaLisbon Now it is reopened $\endgroup$
    – user876009
    Aug 13 at 10:52
  • $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ Aug 13 at 10:54
  • $\begingroup$ Once again, Teresa. :/ $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Sep 22 at 19:52
-1
$\begingroup$

Reopened, then deleted by Community User

Request to open For countably infinite $A$, can we find a unique $\left\{F_n\right\}$ that gives the smallest standard deviation times cardinality?

I tried explaining further and giving an example.

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

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I gave an example and further explained what I want? Why the downvote. $\endgroup$
    – Arbuja
    Aug 1 at 9:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ Aug 1 at 14:36
  • $\begingroup$ @TeresaLisbon I made edits. Hopefully, it's better now. $\endgroup$
    – Arbuja
    Aug 1 at 17:28
  • $\begingroup$ 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!) $\endgroup$ Aug 1 at 22:32
-1
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Sep 15 at 13:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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). $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Sep 15 at 13:08
-1
$\begingroup$

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'.

If what I'm thinking is incorrect, then ok please help me improve the post.

$\endgroup$
-2
$\begingroup$

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
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ 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 Mod
    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). $\endgroup$ 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 Mod
    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.") $\endgroup$ Feb 20 at 20:16
  • $\begingroup$ The question has been deleted. $\endgroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ Mar 25 at 5:51
-2
$\begingroup$

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. $\endgroup$ 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
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ Jun 26 at 16:54
-3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted, deleted again

I would like to suggest that this question be given another chance, as it has various answers which seem like they could possibly have some value.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4159030/the-integral-int-0x-frac-sint-sqrt1t2-textdt

$\endgroup$
5
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It's a shame that answers that took a lot of effort to work out and write up have been deleted. I guess the idea is that people shouldn't write answers to poorly written questions, but it still makes me sad. $\endgroup$ Jun 20 at 2:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I couldn't find a similar question in a quick approach0 search, so I have voted to undelete (but will not vote to reopen in its current state) (willing to hear arguments against undeletion) $\endgroup$ Jun 20 at 3:08
  • $\begingroup$ And answers with 4, 5, 6, 11, and 18 net upvotes get deleted along with the question and its comments and its edits. $\endgroup$ Jul 10 at 5:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question has now been undeleted as I have cast the final undelete vote. The community should really make an exception for this question to preserve the well-written answers and make Maths SE a high-quality repository, despite the state of the question body. $\endgroup$
    – Toby Mak
    Jul 22 at 11:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I will make an exception for this question. I closed it, as I probably would even now, but it is good to see it getting deleted and then undeleted. The idea is definitely that we want to discourage answering such questions, but the process shows that everybody was able to exercise their right and influence the question. It seems closure , in this case, would send the message I'd want but also keep the quality answers (especially the bountied one!) intact. $\endgroup$ Jul 28 at 7:10
-3
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 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
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ Aug 4 at 11:11
-3
$\begingroup$

DELETED

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 Mod
    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. $\endgroup$ 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 Mod
    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. $\endgroup$ Jun 12 at 1:50
-3
$\begingroup$

Question closed, reopened, closed again, deleted.

Please undelete my answer to the question https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4248118/is-this-proof-correct-for-positive-semidefinite-matrices?noredirect=1

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.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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 $\endgroup$ Sep 20 at 23:47
-4
$\begingroup$

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?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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) $\endgroup$ Jul 30 at 5:34
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jul 30 at 8:47
-4
$\begingroup$

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

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This was discussed in the CURED chat room here. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jul 5 at 19:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ Sep 19 at 6:59
-5
$\begingroup$

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)

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Already been asked again here math.stackexchange.com/questions/3979061/… $\endgroup$ Jan 9 at 19:17
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Jan 10 at 13:40
-5
$\begingroup$

Can you please undelete

  1. https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4156575?

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.
$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – KReiser
    Jun 4 at 18:40
  • $\begingroup$ @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? $\endgroup$
    – NNOX Apps
    Jun 5 at 1:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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 $\endgroup$ Jul 3 at 8:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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.) $\endgroup$ Jul 3 at 11:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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). $\endgroup$ Jul 3 at 11:17
-5
$\begingroup$

Deleted

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

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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). $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Aug 13 at 15:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Aug 14 at 2:28
-6
$\begingroup$

Deleted

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4200541?

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.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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? $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Jul 28 at 4:34
  • $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$
    – koss
    Jul 28 at 5:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ Jul 28 at 7:48
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ Jul 30 at 0:24
-6
$\begingroup$

DELETED

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

What is unclear or lacking in details about this please? I notice the close came AFTER I posted the screenshot.

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

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ Jan 12 at 5:57
-6
$\begingroup$

Please undelete :
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4152081/is-this-a-valid-proof-that-2x-0-has-no-real-solutions
I fail to see why this has been deleted. The user clearly provides an attempt.
The question was unilaterally closed before as a dupe of a question(that didn’t meet the site guidelines) that was asked afterwards so it should also be reopened.
Disclaimer : I answered the question

New contributor
Math is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You gave an Answer that clearly explains why the proposed proof is unsatisfactory (essentially a circular argument), but I think it isn't that the user "clearly provides an attempt" so much as they are asking for "proof verification". If they had an idea about what might wrong with their approach, that would be one "attempt". But context could be provided in other ways. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Oct 22 at 18:49
-7
$\begingroup$

Deleted, Deleted

Please reopen

  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.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ ‘Clarity’ can be lost when too much detail is provided. $\endgroup$ Jun 5 at 1:46
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Jun 5 at 3:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The other post suffers from the same problem. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Jun 5 at 3:52
-9
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
-13
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – postmortes
    Jul 25 at 7:19
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ Jul 25 at 13:31
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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." $\endgroup$ Jul 25 at 16:14
1
2

You must log in to answer this question.

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