# Requests for Reopen & Undeletion Votes (volume 01/2022 - today)

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. Please do not use this thread to engage in debates on site policy or other contentious matters. That should be done in a separate linked thread. The goal is to keep this meta thread free of tension, so that everyone feels comfortable posting here.

• 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 may push the question into the reopen review queue if the edit is done within 5 days of closure The question will only be added to the queue if you check the box to indicate that the question's original close reason has been addressed. And one can also use 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:

• Creating a new thread is unnecessary and bad idea, e.g. see here and its links Jan 6 at 10:42
• I applaud annual lists, lest the lists of "answers" becomes difficult to navigate. Also, @Paramanand, thanks for including the links to other "volumes", previously! Jan 6 at 20:31
• I'm sorry to be nitpicky about this, but the second bullet point may need some further tweaking. Rather than saying, "Notice that the first edit after the question may push the question into the reopen review queue if the edit is done within 5 days of closure...", it might be better to just say "Any question with significant edits that address the close reason(s) are automatically put into a review queue to be considered for reopening", which is the text in the corresponding Help Center article. Jan 22 at 9:57
• @BillDubuque My answer here that you said should not be deleted, was just deleted. math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/34447/… Jun 20 at 22:41
• @Nick Flag it for moderator attention. Jun 21 at 2:01
• @Bill, the answer on meta has now been deleted and locked by "Community" so it can no longer be flagged. 2 days ago
• @Gerry the deleted answer is still flaggable for me. In any case one can raise the flag anywhere (e.g. on this question), and Nick has already done so (cf. Math Mods' Office chat). yesterday

Reopened

How do you find the center of a cake with just a knife? was closed as a duplicate of Determine the centre of a circle but it is not a duplicate. Cutting a cake with a knife is not the same thing as drawing lines with an unmarked straightedge; there are things you can do with the one that you can't do with the other. This was not made clear in the original posting of the problem, but it has been made abundantly clear with an edit. Please consider voting to reopen.

• @amWhy, I will stand by my statement that you can do things with a knife and a cake that you can't do with an unmarked straightedge and a circle (and I'm not referring to eating). Did you look at the edit to the question? Did you understand the diagram there? Mar 13 at 23:07
• This is not small stuff, it's not splitting hairs, and it's not being contrarian. You can't find the center of a circle using just an unmarked straightedge, but you can find the center of a circular cake using just a knife. If you don't see how to do it, @amWhy, just take my word for it, it can be done. Mar 13 at 23:29

Undeleted

Please vote for undeleting this question: Bounds involving number of invariant factors and elementary divisors. The question is interesting, and I provided the OP enough hints in order to solve it, so they could post an answer, or maybe someone else. This way other students will benefit from it.

Reopened

Why does $$\Psi(n)=H_{n-1}-\gamma$$ has been closed as a duplicate of Did I derive a new form of the gamma function?. It is stated in my answer to the latter question that $$\psi(n)=-\gamma+H_{n-1}$$, but nowhere on that page is this equation proven.

I have written an answer to the question that was closed.

I really don't see how the former question is a duplicate of the latter. I think that "Why does $$\Psi(n)=H_{n-1}-\gamma$$" should be reopened.

• Agree that it should be reopened.
– Paramanand Singh Mod
Feb 16 at 10:36

Consider undeleting and reopening the question

The question was sloppily written, but interesting. It was closed; later it was deleted by the system bot. For the record: I wrote an answer to the question, recording what I found in the literature. I also rewrote the question to make it more precise.

Edit: The original question was closed, due to lack of clarity. My edit aimed to improve clarity was rolled back to the original post, as written by OP.

• @amWhy: The essence of question is the same, the difference is the added background and a better formulation. But if the question does not get reopened, I will ask a new question myself. Jan 12 at 20:15
• The new question is here (for those who are <10k). Not sure why there is an edit war on this post.... Jan 24 at 21:45
• I did not intend to participate, and will not continue to edit this answer. I just wanted to make the update use the correct terminology and be more convenient to look at in the future with links. I apologise for any wrongdoings. For Math.SE users who do not know: Here is a link to meta.SE explaining what a merged question is, and here are the guidelines for context rewrites. Feb 1 at 3:13

Undeleted, reopened

I asked about the cardinality of the space of functionals on square integrable functions, Cardinality of the space of functionals on $$L^2$$ functions

I believe the question is a good on-topic question very similar to other questions about the cardinality of spaces of functions but new since it is about the cardinality of a space of functionals.

I believe the question was closed due to an initial error on my part in not including what I meant with $$L^2$$ functions. I have since clarified that I mean square integrable functions and have provided a link to its definition on wikipedia. A further comment asked $$L^2$$ functions on what space and I clarified I am interested in the cases $$L^2(R^n)$$ i.e. functions from $$R^n \to R$$.

I have tried reopening through editing and the undelete progress before but it somehow failed. (I don't believe I received any further comment explaining whether there was still an issue with the question). I still have the same question again months later and was about to write a similar question again when I remembered having asked this question before. So unfortunately for me etiquette requires I do not re-ask but instead try to get my question reopened.

Re-opened

Proving Wolstenholme's Theorem has been closed as a duplicate of Proof of Wolstenholme's theorem. However, the supposed duplicate asks not for a proof, but what is wrong with their proof.

The mistakes made in the proof seem easy enough to make, and would be instructive to others, in my opinion.

• Perhaps this should be re-titled, e.g. "What's the mistake in my proof of Wolstenholme's Theorem?" Apr 2 at 12:49

Reopened

Request to reopen my question post "What is the name of the symbol = in English?". It has been closed as a "Needs details or clarity" post. I clarified my question's distinction and submitted to review but not accepted as "Original close reason(s) were not resolved". I cannot understand or grasp the reviews' opinion or idea that they thought what is not clear.

I posted this question: Optimal path on the surface of cuboid doesn't visit the same face twice. It was a simple one and someone answered it as a comment. I was planning to expand on the comment and post an answer. This would have been useful for my future reference. However, the question was closed. I'd like to appeal this. Just because its a simple question doesn't mean it can't be useful. The reason says "it doesn't have context". But I feel its completely self-contained and additional context is unnecessary. In any case, I have added it in an edit.

• "Just because its a simple question doesn't mean it can't be useful" and just because it's useful (no evidence given for that) doesn't mean it should be open. Reviewers (and commenters in this case) attempted to ask for some kind of information or elicit some effort out of you , likely because they felt the need to do so instead of answer directly. The link provided is good enough ,in my eyes, for context. Note that "structured optimization" (optimal controls having specific properties) is a big deal in research, and this is a toy example. Jun 12 at 23:42
• The post is now reopened. Jun 13 at 12:07

Undeleted and reopened.

Please consider reopening the following question:

In what sense is $$\Bbb R(x)$$ an "instantiation" of the hyperreals?

It seems to have been closed simply because $$\Bbb R(x)$$ is not an "instantiation" of hyperreal numbers in the strict sense of the word, rather than there being an issue with the question itself.

It was deleted by a bot.

It has, in the past, been undeleted and reopened; I made a case for it that goes something like this:

• The question has been answered in error by a well-established & respected user, only to have that answer deleted as incorrect. Surely, then, there is enough of a misunderstanding about hyperreal numbers for there to be a need for the question.

• The proposed duplicate doesn't mention $$\Bbb R(x)$$. Since the video in question makes the analogy between $$\Bbb R(x)$$ and hyperreal numbers, there must be some sense in the analogy, right? This needs addressing and the duplicate does not do so.

• It has context. I put a lot of effort into the question and I believe it shows.

In the comments on the question, there is a link to a valuable chat discussion on hyperreals.

A particular user has agreed to answer the question if it is reopened again.

• Posts containing advertising for bad made up videos do not belong on this site. Instead of complaining why do you not just improve the question so that it deserves an undeletion ? 2 days ago
• Yes the given dupe is a very poor choice. You may find helpful the links I give here. 2 days ago
• As I said here, @Peter, it is not an advertisement; I don't see how you can make that claim. How am I to ask what is meant by the terminology without referencing where I encountered it? 2 days ago

Reopened.

This question was just closed as opinion based. It is not opinion based (what are the opinions on which it is based?) and should be reopened. The question asks about connections between PDE and representation theory. A similar, if not the same, question exists on Mathoverflow since 2019. It is upvoted many times and has several answers.

• I made some comments regarding this in the main thread itself. The "opinion" on which it is based seems to be whether the theory of automorphic forms falls under DE or not. Nevertheless, the MO thread seems to be a fairly objective/fact-based answer to the question. While the author revealed themselves to be beginning their Masters, a few close and down votes have come before this comment : that information is essential for deciphering the level of the student, and without it someone would have had to opine about the author's preference/aptitude for a certain subject. Jan 11 at 6:26

Reopened

I edited my post. Can you reopen it? I accept the answer.

@banana told me to do it

Closed as duplicate

I don't know if I can use this thread for closing a question as a duplicate, but let me try.

Please vote for closing this question Intersection of Cyclotomic Extensions - gcd as a duplicate. Link for the dupe can be found under the question.

• Why the need to post here, will it not be closed via the normal pathway of reviews? Feb 3 at 10:56
• I guess not.... Feb 3 at 11:01
• I know, else you wouldn't have posted here, but "why" still remains? I filtered the close queue by dupes and yours was the third post to be reviewed for me. (I would rather not vote because I have no idea what the topic is) Feb 3 at 11:08
• I had other experiences with similar dupes that never closed as such. Feb 3 at 11:09
• Well this arguably doesn't belong here, but I think you might find support in the CURED room chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/2165/cured Feb 3 at 11:11
• @CalvinKhor fyi: As I stated when I created the original thread 10 years ago: "The purpose of this thread is to help focus the attention of the community on posts that may require exceptional handling". Some dupe closures may indeed require exceptional handling, since many (queue) reviewers have neither the time nor expertise to properly judge them. Feb 3 at 14:05
• I have voted to close as duplicate, and I agree with the direction of closing. However I think it would be good to disclose in such cases that you bring to the attention of Meta Math.SE that you have edited the Q being closed to more closely resemble the older Q. I agree with your edit (some domain knowledge is useful to appreciate the issues). Feb 3 at 15:27
• There's a duplicate thread that you might use Feb 3 at 15:30
• @Bill I did think of you as I recall you pointing that out in last year’s thread. But I don’t think user26857 has made a case for why it requires such handling. Perhaps this is instead obvious to you from the content. In addition, just as we ask for posts to make it through the reopen queue before posting here, I think it would have been better if user was more patient. All this to say well. I don’t really have any horse in the race and I didn’t vote on this answer. Feb 3 at 16:08
• @ArcticChar There shouldn't be a separate dupe thread. Those requests belong here, cf. my prior comment. The (original) purpose of the thread is to handle all such exceptional requests - which localizes front page resources to one slot, minimizes bumping, etc, cf, my prior comment. Feb 6 at 9:15
• @Calvin One can argue, why post a reopen request: "will it not be [reopened] via the normal pathway of reviews?" There are avenues for reopening via queues. Just like there are for closure. If you think a separate thread is needed for reopening, for which there is a devoted queue, then it only makes sense that this thread should allow for close votes. Undeletion requestions are a separate issue, and belong here. What's good for the gander is good for the goose, wrt Reopen/close votes. Feb 11 at 20:56
• @amWhy my point is not that the answer should never have been posted. But the answer was posted at soon after their first close vote (I forget the timing now, this was last week.) certainly we do not want every reopen vote to be posted here. So if it requires ‘exceptional handling’ perhaps a brief explanation why would be good? In addition I’d like to ask, do you agree that the post could have also been closed via CURED? Feb 12 at 1:19
• Calvin One could respond to your first post "Why the need to post here, in this thread, when the moderator tools can accomplish the same?" May 25 at 17:53

Undeleted

Reopened

The question Are there any usages for growth rate that are relatively easy to show? was closed for not providing context. The context is brief but clear, including mention of growth rates and Gromov's polynomial growth theorem, and a request for some simple implications of growth rates. It's a unique question for this site and there could be some valuable answers (I made such a comment already, in lieu of being able to make an answer).

• As noted in the comments below that question, the text being used is not mentioned, nor are their links to the mentioned Wikipedia pages. Moreover, one of the comments seems make it clear that the question itself is not as clear as you suggest: "Well, Gromov's result is rather concrete - see wikipedia. You can talk about it without giving a proof. Certainly you should ask your adviser for the seminar for more details on your topic. It seems that you need to present some of the basics on geometric group theory, too"
– Xander Henderson Mod
May 6 at 21:28
• I am also concerned that the question is looking for "trivial" and "intuitive" examples, which is rather a matter of opinion (again, see the comment I quoted above). Personally, I do not believe that this question is a very strong candidate for reopening in its current form.
– Xander Henderson Mod
May 6 at 21:29

Undeleted

Please vote for undeleting this answer: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1933337/121097. It is correct, and for some reason that I don't know it was downvoted twice, and this probably determined the answerer to delete it.

You can also upvote it, since it is way simpler than the accepted answer.

Undeleted (but still closed), Deleted

“Does it make sense to try to extend the concept of a raised set to a real number?” asks an easily intelligible question: can one can make sense of the notation $$\Bbb R^x$$ even when $$x$$ is a non-integer. It was closed, without comment, as “off-topic”, and then deleted.

I considered the question on-topic and contributed an answer. My answer included some elementary remarks and then citations to pertinent mathematical research, published in the American Mathematical Monthly. In my mind, this should be sufficient to show that the issue is neither “off-topic” or “not about mathematics”.

• FYI: two of the five close votes were for "lacking context". For what it is worth, I agree with those voters. As I read the question it is "Does $\mathbb{R}^t$ make sense for arbitrary $t$ and can I publish it?" (I am guessing that the second part of that question is the bit that the remaining three voters felt was off-topic). That being said, your answer is nice---you might consider rewriting the question.
– Xander Henderson Mod
Mar 2 at 21:05
• Why did you answer a question lacking any and all context, @MJD, and why now, five months after the post's appropriate deletion, does this concern you? Mar 2 at 21:48
• @Delete-voters. Requests ("answers") in this thread should not be deleted, e.g. see this moderator comment. This is a longstanding policy. Mar 2 at 23:39
• @XanderHenderson The question doesn't say anything about publishing the result. It says “is it possible to make a paper out of it?” I took this to mean something like a high school term paper. We don't know what the questioner did mean. I wish people here would be a little more charitable and a little less hasty when judging the intentions of strangers who might be children, might not be writing in their first language, and might be from places where the exact nuances of English are different from those of their own dialect.
– MJD
Mar 3 at 22:16
• @MJD I did not interpret the sentence in the same way you did, which I think lends credence to the argument that the question is unclear. And if your interpretation is correct, the question is still off-topic, as that particular question is a matter of opinion, and is best posed to an advisor or instructor who might ultimately have to grade that paper.
– Xander Henderson Mod
Mar 3 at 23:06

Undeleted, closed, deleted by regular users

Please vote for reopening this question: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4410226. See the edit history at https://math.stackexchange.com/posts/4410226/revisions. The post was closed. Then I substantially changed the question and then the question was reopened. However, the current version of the question was deleted and then undeleted. Then a user's comments was finally made an answer. Then, I accepted the answer. However, the question has again been closed. Two people have already voted to delete this and with one more delete vote, it will be deleted again. So, I am requesting for the question to be reopened.

• It is a bad question, so why should it be undeleted? May 20 at 20:59
• @user21820 The old version was a bad question. I substantially changed the question. The new version should be accepted. May 20 at 21:16
• You clearly did not read the linked post. May 20 at 21:49
• @user21820 Of course I read the linked post. The post says "Provide context, include the source and motivation for your question.". My question does have context. And same thing applies with all the rules given in the post. May 20 at 22:37
• First, you were asked in the comments to write out your substitution, but you didn't do it. Second, you say you want to get an answer, but an answer was handed to you on a silver platter in one of the comments, and you ignored it. m.se helps those who help themselves. May 20 at 22:56
• @GerryMyerson I gain two points of reputation by accepting an answer. So, I am waiting for that opportunity. May 22 at 16:20
• That doesn't excuse your refusal to engage with the comments. You could have posted a comment, pinging the user who posted the hint, asking that user to please post that comment as an answer, so you could accept it. Or, you could have used that hint to work out a solution yourself, and then you could have posted your solution as an answer, and then you could have accepted it. You have to interact with the users who are trying to help you, not just sit back and wait for an answer to appear out of nowhere. May 22 at 23:57
• Anyway, the question is undeleted and reopened now, so you can still take these actions I have suggested. May 22 at 23:58
• Please do not vote to delete the question again. May 24 at 4:58
• I really don't understand the idea behind voting to delete this post. Not the one on main – this post right here. If you can't ask for something to be reopened or undeleted here, what alternative do you have left? Vote this post down, if you think it deserves it, but please don't delete it. May 24 at 13:04
• @GerryMyerson that could have been because of the dupe request (which is now deleted, so this one hopefully stays) May 24 at 14:05