28
$\begingroup$

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. 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.

  • If you are involved in the thread which you post about (e.g., you asked the question or you answered it), please disclose this.

  • Please do not (vote to) delete answers to this thread unless there are serious problems.

Earlier versions of the thread that served as a model:

$\endgroup$
13
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ Creating a new thread is unnecessary and bad idea, e.g. see here and its links $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Jan 6, 2022 at 10:42
  • 15
    $\begingroup$ I applaud annual lists, lest the lists of "answers" becomes difficult to navigate. Also, @Paramanand, thanks for including the links to other "volumes", previously! $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Jan 6, 2022 at 20:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – The Amplitwist
    Jan 22, 2022 at 9:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque My answer here that you said should not be deleted, was just deleted. math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/34447/… $\endgroup$
    – Nick Alger
    Jun 20, 2022 at 22:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Nick Flag it for moderator attention. $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Jun 21, 2022 at 2:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Bill, the answer on meta has now been deleted and locked by "Community" so it can no longer be flagged. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Jun 26, 2022 at 0:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @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). $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Jun 26, 2022 at 3:11
  • $\begingroup$ Why is one user allowed to dominate this thread? If you look at the posts, and the requester who always gets their way, often after inappropriate edits to a poor question, there's a definite pattern of dominance. And I say this only because mods have not yet intervened. I'm surprised that the moderators keep turning their heads in silence and inaction, hence, giving free rein to one user. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Nov 10, 2022 at 21:14
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ @amW, anyone is allowed to post to this thread, and anyone is allowed to register disagreement with a requester. If other users disagreed with any one requester's posts, they could vote that user down, with no need for moderator intervention. And if other users haven't complained about one particular user, then I'd say the moderators are quite right not to intervene. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 11, 2022 at 5:35
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Not practically. You play a huge role in that. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Nov 18, 2022 at 20:41
  • $\begingroup$ Not exactly a welcoming interaction here. Unbelievable. math.stackexchange.com/questions/4616434/… $\endgroup$
    – Alper
    Jan 14 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Alper I just cast the last needed undelete vote to that posting, so now the posting has been undeleted. However, just so you know, the posting is still closed. I also cast a re-open vote for the posting. $\endgroup$
    – user2661923
    Mar 4 at 23:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @user2661923 that post was redeleted a couple of weeks ago. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Mar 28 at 2:41

66 Answers 66

Reset to default
1
2
3
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted and Reopened

Please vote for undeleting this question.

This question was closed 11 days ago and deleted 8 days ago. I'm still confused by the deletion. In my opinion, this question didn't miss any contexts. He knows the limit of $f_n$, but he just didn’t know how to prove the uniform convergence, so he asked in MSE. It is a very good question, in my opinion, so I would like to take some time writting an answer for it.

What's more, the question owns 3 upvotes and 1 bookmark; my answer was accepted by OP and owns 4 upvotes.

$\endgroup$
0
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted (but still closed), Deleted, Undeleted (after 3 months!), Reopened

“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”.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Mar 2, 2022 at 21:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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? $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Mar 2, 2022 at 21:48
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ @Delete-voters. Requests ("answers") in this thread should not be deleted, e.g. see this moderator comment. This is a longstanding policy. $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Mar 2, 2022 at 23:39
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$
    – MJD
    Mar 3, 2022 at 22:16
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Mar 3, 2022 at 23:06
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened.

Please consider reopening $p$-cycle in $S_p$ lies in certain subgroup., a question about how to prove a nontrivial result mentioned without proof in a paper. It is not clear to me what additional context anyone would want for this question beyond the linked paper, or how the site would be better off without this question and others like it.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ This has been re-closed. $\endgroup$
    – The Amplitwist
    Nov 20, 2022 at 13:34
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Please consider reopening inner products on polynomials, a natural question presented with plenty of context. It is entirely mysterious to me why it was closed or what additional context anyone wants from it.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Preceding the question , there is a note on a basic case, and that's enough motivation/context for this question. $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Nov 10, 2022 at 6:00
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I want to request to reopen Polynomial Approximation of Multiplicative Function, or receiving advice on how I can further improve the problem such that it meets the standard of Math Stack Exchange.

The feedback I received is

Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc.

However, I did go though forms of context one by one, and I am uncertain about what type of context is missing.

  • Motivation
    • My recent edit added a brief summary to the motivation of the question
  • Personal Background
    • My recent edit added my personal background (an undergraduate studying first number theory class)
  • Definitions
    • The question includes a hyperlink to Wikipedia page of multiplicative function, to clarify that the "multiplicative function" is referring to multiplicative function in number theory.
  • Possible strategies & Include your work
    • The question includes my own attempt at answering the question (the statement is false), and a possible route to the answer (estimating the growth of $f(p^a) = p^{p^a}$).
$\endgroup$
0
2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, as requested. (Thanks.)

This old Question, currently at a +1 score, was considered abandoned, then autodeleted, by the roomba 2 yrs ago.

For completeness, I've just edited it to add a self-Answer. If you feel that this page is worth restoring, just vote to Undelete it, after which I shall convert the addendum into an actual self-Answer for self-acceptance (the green tick).

Cheers.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Are my odds higher predicting a $50/50$ bet with a constant or picking a random number each time?

I added the last part:

The context is this - casino games - more specifically dice ones.

After asked for context 2 times - while I think that was not necessary. (for the curios It's a game on the online casino where you predict if a number is above or below another number (which can be chosen to be 50 (where the range is [0, 100])).

I honestly think this question is clear as it stands and should not be closed.

Anyway as per observation I replaced the above with the following (as of now):

I initially had this theory in my head that placing random bets each time, rather than having a constant to compare with all the time - has sorta the properties of having a higher chance to match because of the possible cases where the random numbers I'm predicting stray from the constant.

Also I had concerns on the other hand that if Each time I predict random - since it's random on the both ends - it may have less chance to match as well.

My question is simple if any of those above concerns hold any merit.

There were also concerns about the rules of modifying the balance which I cleared up as well - in my recent edit.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ You may add the background about your knowledge in probability, also, why you think that placing random bets each time, rather than having a constant to compare with all the time is better using the probability knowledge you know. $\endgroup$
    – Arctic Char
    May 16 at 0:58
  • $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar I just added that? $\endgroup$
    – FISOCPP
    May 16 at 0:59
  • $\begingroup$ So what is your background in probability? I can't find that in the post. $\endgroup$
    – Arctic Char
    May 16 at 1:02
  • $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar None - added that too. $\endgroup$
    – FISOCPP
    May 16 at 1:04
2
$\begingroup$

Please consider reopening In what sense is the sphere the limit of convex polyhedra?, a very natural question motivated by an obvious curiosity about how to formalize a well-known intuitive idea. It is unclear to me why it was closed or what additional context anyone would want from such a question.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The post has now been reopened. $\endgroup$
    – The Amplitwist
    Jun 21 at 20:55
2
$\begingroup$

Reopened

Request to reopen the following question Proof of the Existence of All Phone Numbers in Pi.

Related meta dicussion: Should this special case question (that has a proof) be marked as a duplicate of the general case question (that doesn't have a proof)?

I recently found this question: Proof of the Existence of All Phone Numbers in Pi

I understand why it can be seen as a duplicate of Does π contain all possible number combinations?, but the question is much more specific and there is a proof that doesn't need π to be a normal number: a proof by exhaustion.

As discussed in my comment, since the early 2000s, we know enough digits of π to prove that it contains all 10-digit number sequences with an exhaustive search. However, this proof wouldn't make sense as an answer to the question on all possible number combinations.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ We even know that all digit strings of length $11$ occur. But what is then the question ? It follows from the known digits of $\pi$. A proof is obsolete. $\endgroup$
    – Peter
    Sep 1 at 21:15
  • $\begingroup$ Noone knows how this result can be extended to , say , the digit-strings with length $30$. We only know the above result because the digits have been calculated. Noone is able to predict anything here. So no , there is no alternative proof that does not use the awfully many calculated digits. $\endgroup$
    – Peter
    Sep 1 at 21:18
  • $\begingroup$ But to know that "all digit strings of length 11 occur" we need a computer-assisted proof. It doesn't follow directly from looking at the digits of π with the human eye due to the length of the search. $\endgroup$
    – DecimalTurn
    Sep 1 at 22:02
  • $\begingroup$ Anyway , we cannot prove the occurence of a given digit string in $\pi$ , unless we do not already know that it is there ans where. So, the only possibility we have with our current knowledge is to look at the digits , we have nothing better. And of course , we must trust the computer that the digits are correct. So I do not understand the point. $\endgroup$
    – Peter
    Sep 1 at 22:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Peter I think there are still interesting discussions to have regarding this exhaustive search. For instance, assuming the digits of π are distributed randomly, how many digits are expected to be required to have all the n-digit strings appear at least once? Also, there are interesting methods to verify that the digits are correct such as the BBP algorithm. I would gladly post an answer to the question to expand further on these discussions, but as long as the question is closed, I can't. $\endgroup$
    – DecimalTurn
    Sep 1 at 22:25
  • $\begingroup$ If you mean the shortcut to determine the digits without having to calculate all previous digits : For $\pi$ (and only for $\pi$) such a shortcut is actually known , but sadly only in base $2$. And although we do not need the complete binary expansion , we still cannot determine some binary digit immediately , it still takes a lot of time , if it comes "late" in $\pi$. $\endgroup$
    – Peter
    Sep 1 at 22:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Peter I mentioned the BBP algorithm because your said "And of course , we must trust the computer that the digits are correct". What I meant is that we can use BBP to check that the digits we are using are correct (to almost 100%), we don't have to trust them blindlly. See also: youtube.com/watch?v=nMqdRu9gGGs&t=167s $\endgroup$
    – DecimalTurn
    Sep 2 at 2:34
  • $\begingroup$ As said, this algorithm only works in base 2 , so I see no possibility to check digits without computer help. We also cannot "prove" that the largest known prime is prime. We must trust the computer calculations. The situation is the same. $\endgroup$
    – Peter
    Sep 2 at 7:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Peter 1) The BBP algorithm is used to calculate digits in base 16 (hexadecimal). 2) There are ways to convert a base 16 number to base 10 (and vice versa), so this just adds an additional step to the checking process. $\endgroup$
    – DecimalTurn
    Sep 2 at 15:32
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Peter What do you mean by saying "a proof is obsolete"? Checking the known digits for all 10-digit strings is a proof. And considering that this question was closed as a duplicate of a question regarding the normality of $\pi$, which is unknown, it seems not to be too widely known that enough digits of $\pi$ are known to answer the question for 10-digit strings (at least among the close voters). $\endgroup$
    – MaoWao
    Sep 2 at 16:21
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ In any case, it seems clear to me that a question whose answer is known cannot be a duplicate to a question whose answer is unknown. We also do not close a question asking if there are infinitely many primes as a duplicate of a question asking if there are infinitely many prime twins just because a positive answer to the second question would imply a positive answer to the first. $\endgroup$
    – MaoWao
    Sep 2 at 16:23
1
$\begingroup$

Reopened

I think that this question should not have been closed as a duplicate. It is tagged - the asker does not want to know how the proposition is proved, but to know if their own proof is valid.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ From the main thread, "Further, leaving it open almost always results in users posting many duplicate answers, which leads to rampant duplication - making it difficult if not impossible to locate "best" answers." strikes at the heart of the debate. This question is tagged solution-verification, yet there is very little confidence that the next answerer will respect this. $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Jul 5, 2022 at 10:04
1
$\begingroup$

Reopened (yay)

My Question is ostensibly similar to this Question as they refer to and are illustrated by the same mathematical exercise.

However, they do not duplicate each other, because

  • my Question queries about the derivation of the upper bound of a particular detail used to algorithmically obtain the solutions, while the other Question queries about the number of solutions.
  • none of my Question's Answers address the latter Question, and none of the other Question's Answers even indirectly address my Question.

To better focus my Question (and to clarify the misunderstanding), I've boldfaced its thesis “But why the upper bound $\frac r2$ for $n\,?$” Again: this issue is neither raised nor directly nor indirectly addressed in the other Question.

Hopefully, this explanation is sufficiently persuasive.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

UNDELETED

The following was closed and deleted, presumably because it contains two exercises, and a cursory reading might place it, therefore, as needing focus; it does not: it's about an apparent contradiction in Robinson's book on group theory between the two exercises.

Two exercises by Robinson on supersolvable groups seem to contradict.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Deleted, Undeleted, auto-deleted

Request to reopen my question "What is the use of the $\ell^2$ spaces?". It was once closed as lacking context, but was reopened after the context was added. Then it was closed for "This question needs to be more focused". It is more narrowly focused than the other questions which is not closed (example). I further narrowed the focus to $p=2$, but it was left closed in review. I focused even more narrowly to $\mathbb{K}=\mathbb{R}$. There is no close-voter explaining how narrow is enough.

It is almost José Carlos Santos and Another User who are trying to close this question and they leave no comments.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ The most recent closure had nothing to do with the two users you name. It was a unilateral action by a moderator, who has left several comments. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Aug 9 at 13:13
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The non-closed questions you cite are all old, with the one you give here being from 2015. Site norms and conventions change over time, and generally these kinds of questions are closed now. To make a case for your one to be reopened, you'd need to convince the readers/voters/moderator that the information is truly not readily available - for example, search in a couple of standard books in the area, or act on Xander's first comment and look on the site. If these actions answer your question then great! If they don't, then it makes a better case to reopen the question. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Aug 9 at 13:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson See the History. left closed in review by José Carlos Santos, Another User and Arctic Char. $\endgroup$
    – Htmm
    Aug 9 at 13:24
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I did see the history, Htmm, and it confirms my comment in all its particulars. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Aug 9 at 13:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As one of the user who voted to "leave closed" your post: I agree with everything Severin Schraven said there. $\endgroup$
    – Arctic Char
    Aug 10 at 10:08
1
$\begingroup$

I request to please review The question https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4207341/if-all-the-sides-of-an-n-sided-polygon-are-equal-is-it-always-a-regular-polygon

I have provided My own attempts to understand the concept, and asked a genuine question that bothered me, Recently I was Banned from Asking questions On MSE, since then I have been trying to review posts that were deleted or closed or received negative votes, Also I have been contributing to MSE by providing answers to questions that I know the solution of..

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Jan 11, 2022 at 6:26
  • $\begingroup$ That this is not opinion-based is not a fact but again an opinion-based statement. To me , it is definitely opinion-based. Therefore I cannot understand why it was reopened. $\endgroup$
    – Peter
    Aug 20 at 8:58
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened, reclosed, deleted

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

@banana told me to do it

Sorry why my answer gets into comments? < 50 reputation?

$\endgroup$
1
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened after moderator intervention

While reading an an answer to What should I do if I find the answer to an old question of mine that was automatically deleted as abandoned? over at the main StackExchange Meta site, I came across the following comments:

This topic math.stackexchange.com/questions/2706956 with beautiful problem and my nice answer was deleted. How can we undelete this topic? Thank you! – Michael Rozenberg Aug 16, 2018

@MichaelRozenberg I'm afraid I probably wouldn't know enough to be able to comment on that Q&A even if I could see it. If you can tell what the problem with the question is and can fix it, edit and ask the community to undelete. Or raise the question on your site's meta. I don't know how things work on Math, but I've seen the community fix and undelete questions on other sites, if the problem is fixable. – Monica Cellio Aug 16, 2018 at 17:08

To justify a variance from the fourth guideline above...

While Michael Rozenberg appears to still be active on Mathematics 'proper', he does not seem to have an account at all here on Maths Meta.

As I don't know if anyone (e.g. the original question author) has followed up on why that answered question about triangle inequalities was deleted (and I can't view the deleted question to evaluate it myself, of course), I am posting it here in case there is anything promising within the referenced question and/or answer!

- Jim

$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hi Jim, I give credit to MR for the answer (and his many answers over the years) , and this question looks rescuable, because it isn't a duplicate, and apart from lacking context has no other problem. For example, I believe that if we can edit the Euler and Gerritsen inequalities into the post, we can call for undeletion. Guidelines for context edits and rewrites will ensure that I can insert the required definitions, so I will do it myself. In hindsight, there is an answer that uses Gerritsen's inequality, so it is useful eventually. Therefore, I will edit the post shortly. $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Jul 16, 2022 at 3:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The post has been deleted by a moderator, so cannot be undeleted by users. I have still edited the post, and will probably flag for undeletion. $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Jul 16, 2022 at 3:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Reopened now, enjoy $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Aug 3, 2022 at 5:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for improving the question. $\endgroup$
    – Jim Grisham
    Aug 4, 2022 at 3:28
  • $\begingroup$ You are welcome! $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Aug 4, 2022 at 3:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Sarvesh In truth, it was not reopened here. It lives where it belongs. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Nov 10, 2022 at 22:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SarveshRavichandranIyer: You rewarded a chronic PSQ poster, and a chronic PSQ answerer. Congratulations. $\endgroup$
    – user21820
    Jan 9 at 6:50
0
$\begingroup$

Please consider reopening Are there any other fraction-to-decimal conversions like $\frac{5}{2} = 2.5$?. This is a nontrivial question motivated by an obvious natural curiousity. It is not clear to me what additional context anyone would expect or want a question like this to have, or how the site would be better off without this question and others like it.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It needs a computer program to test for these numbers, and/or a few more observations on $a,b$ (elimination of a few cases, necessary/sufficient conditions) right now. $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Dec 16, 2022 at 2:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The post is now repoened. $\endgroup$
    – The Amplitwist
    Dec 17, 2022 at 13:34
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened, Re-closed, reopened

Please consider reopening Show that the $\ell_p$ norm of $x$ as $p \to 0$ is the support of $x$

The post is edited and the context is quite clear as OP mentioned in a comment.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I actually don't agree that the OP's mention of a page in a linked preview (of a $$60+ book) is proper or clear context. The proposition itself seems relatively easy to demonstrate (as it follows from solving the case $n=1$). Before banging our heads over trying to get the OP to provide context, perhaps we should check for potential duplicates? $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Aug 14, 2022 at 3:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ See my comments under that post, and also : this book is open-source, see here. It is not the demonstration that one must focus on here : given that the author is coming from the point of view of compressed sensing, answering this question requires one to also understand how and why this question relates to CS : the answer being that as an identity, it is used for $l_0$ norm minimization problems, which form a large part of sparse matrix linear algebra. This question is relevant beyond the mere identity via context $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    Aug 14, 2022 at 4:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @hardmath: I do not think that "the OP's mention of a page" alone is context. "Context" means a lot of things. To me, the very definition of the $l_p$ norm and the $\textrm{supp}$ are all context. // If it were to be closed as a duplicate, it should be reopened first I suppose. What is a "$$60+ book"? $\endgroup$
    – user1046533
    Aug 14, 2022 at 11:24
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened; reclosed as not suitable

Please consider reopening $G$ is an infinite $p$-group implies a normal subgroup of order $p$ is central

It has been closed as a duplicate but the prior problem was asking for finite groups only, while the text of the new question explicitly asked for infinite groups to be covered.

Thanks for your time

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ As it stands the question is a problem-statement question: it provides no context, no effort and doesn't meet the site standards (which I note was mentioned to you as a comment to the answer you've provided). The question needs to be improved before reopening. $\endgroup$
    – postmortes
    Mar 27 at 17:38
  • $\begingroup$ As @postmortes states, the question does not meet the quality guidelines for the site. I have closed the question for that reason. The banner at the top of the question should now point you in the direction of advice on asking questions. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Mar 27 at 17:55
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Let's be clear. I requested that this not be closed as a duplicate. You have fixed that - thank you. On site standards, you guys are the experts and I am not requesting that you open it now. Thanks for your time. $\endgroup$
    – Laska
    Mar 28 at 0:54
0
$\begingroup$

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2733432/applications-of-functions

I wrote an answer to this five years ago. Apparently the OP vandalized their question, so it eventually got deleted. But now I can't even see what the original question was; I can only see the most recent version. I think it should be undeleted and rolled back.

It was about determining the five parameters in $f(x)=a+b\exp(cx)\cos(dx+e)$, given only the graph $y=f(x)$.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ The edit history can be viewed by clicking on the date shown to the left of where of post authorship is shown. Even without the assumed vandalism, the Question strikes me as as bare problem statement, i.e. lacking context. Although I'm a curve-fitting fanboy, I don't think it is suitable as a Question for the site (but I can see you put much effort into your Answer). The OP has not been seen for years now. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    May 18 at 20:52
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ No, it cannot be viewed by low-rep users like me. $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    May 18 at 20:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In particular, I can't see whether it was or wasn't a good question at any time. $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    May 18 at 21:06
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The original version (current one is edit 2) shows this image of a graph and asks how to fit a function (omitting the constant offset $a$ as you relate it above). The OP never supplied the missing parameter nor responded to Comments by you and JJacquelin. If it's important to get your Answer back, I'd email it to you (reach me at username at gmail). $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    May 18 at 21:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have access to the answer. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5221/… $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    May 18 at 22:49
  • $\begingroup$ It looks like the question has been rolled back. (I didn't notice until now.) A little thank to @user1729. [sic] $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    Nov 16 at 4:55
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened

This question was closed for lack of context, though the question is simple enough to stand on its own. I spent quite some time coming up with an answer only to have the question closed shortly before my answer was posted and think that the methods used in the answer provide sufficient motivation.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Given that the question is unarguably a PSQ, likely many users will disagree with reopening unless the question is improved, cf. EOQS site policy $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    May 18 at 20:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It's a question about line bundles on a manifold, it has a long & detailed answer. The question currently has two votes to delete, and I think it would be sad if the content of that answer were to be removed from this site. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    May 18 at 23:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerry Then why not improve the question to prevent that? $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    May 19 at 2:15
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Bill, there is a general reason, and a specific reason. The general reason is that many of our fellow users believe that only the person posting a poor question is allowed to improve it. No one else is allowed to put words into that poster's mouth, as it were. The specific reason is that I wouldn't know a line bundle on a manifold from a homotopy type-theory, so I am singularly unsuited to improving that particular question. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    May 19 at 4:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In general, I don't think a question can/should be saved by it's answer. Any answerer has a responsibility to ensure that they answer good question, and "good" isn't just about mathematical quality (as this is not MathOverflow). $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    May 20 at 10:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I used to believe that as well. The reason behind that thinking was that we shouldn't be guessing any posters' intentions from their poor question at all lest we get it wrong, and that if we were to do that, then many posters would just dump their question knowing that someone would improve it, so they're not putting as much effort into their argument. Over time, I think I've come to realize that the second argument is a slippery slope and the first can be countered by placing some trust on editors to get things right. $\endgroup$
    – Sarvesh Ravichandran Iyer
    May 27 at 11:36
0
$\begingroup$

Request to undelete my post https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4698344/861687. This question was deleted by community bot. The only reason I see for deletion is downvote. Perhaps some user find it multiple questions in one post but I asked only one question. Since comments are “temporary”, I edited my post to include main idea of answer. I don’t know what algorithm is being used for community bot, but certainly they want to suppress net downvote posts.

$\endgroup$
14
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This was auto-deleted by the community user because it had a score of -1 or lower and no answers, no active bounty, and no lock. How do you plan to improve the question, and why didn't you make any improvements in the last month? $\endgroup$
    – KReiser
    Jun 19 at 15:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KReiser that post is a simple question not a thesis, how can I improve it (genuinely)? I can’t improve all my $280$ questions post to keep them “active”. It seems like nowadays posts are temporary too. $\endgroup$
    – user264745
    Jun 19 at 15:52
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ For one, you're asking three separate questions in one post, which was noted in the comments on the day you made your post. You don't have to edit all of your posts all of the time (over-editing can be a problem too) but when you get immediate feedback like the comment to ask one question at a time plus two downvotes on the same day you make your post, I don't understand why you wouldn't try addressing that until a month passes and your post is automatically deleted. (The comment about posts being temporary is a red herring - do you really want every post at -2 and no answers hanging around?) $\endgroup$
    – KReiser
    Jun 19 at 16:58
  • $\begingroup$ @KReiser I already mentioned in above answer and comment of that post that I asked one question only. I just wrote entire theorem as it is written in book. I don’t know why you think I asked three separate questions. That post got downvoted because I was experiencing targeted downvoting during that time. Anyway I don’t care about downvotes. With multiple questions and downvotes (way to justify deletion of post) out of the way. Not all user prefer to write short answer in answer section, so they instead comment on post. That’s why I’m not surprised with no answer, I got answer in comment. $\endgroup$
    – user264745
    Jun 19 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ Your question can be interpreted in 2 separate ways, which makes it a bad question. Firstly, it could be a "check my proof" question of a 4 part question. Secondly, it could be asking to formalise your solution to part (iv). I'm guessing you wanted the second "formalise" one, but then why give both your solution and the solution in the book to the other 3 parts? What does it add? It is confusing. (If it does add something, then don't make the reader join the dots for themself, because everyone will join them differently.) $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jun 20 at 8:04
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729 I have edited my post. $\endgroup$
    – user264745
    Jun 20 at 9:44
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, it looks better. However, you still have too much extra information. Why include Hungerford's proofs of the other parts? Also, if your "edit" at the end answers the question, then you should have added this as an answer rather than as an edit to the question. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jun 20 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729 I will edit my post to exclude extra stuff. Since answer is not mine, I don't think it is appropriate to make other people comment into an answer, that is just my opinion. $\endgroup$
    – user264745
    Jun 20 at 10:42
  • $\begingroup$ In this situation, it would be appropriate to write an answer giving appropriate accreditation (e.g. link to the comments), and check the "community wiki" box. Community wiki's mean that the answer isn't due to a single person, and so noone gets reputation points. The system does not like questions which have no "answer", and so for example will delete them like what happened here. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jun 20 at 11:44
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729 now unfortunately can't write answer. I don't know the exact statistic of unanswered question but significant number of post are unanswered and inactive then all post should be deleted not only few (randomly chosen). Posts are not lottery. $\endgroup$
    – user264745
    Jun 20 at 12:44
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Deleted posts are not "randomly chosen". Your question satisfied specific conditions, so was automatically deleted. This was addressed in the first comment above, by KReiser. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jun 20 at 13:44
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729 I don't need to emphasis how wide scope those conditions are. All most all (above 90%, just my guess) unanswered question falls into that category. $\endgroup$
    – user264745
    Jun 20 at 14:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The issue is not with the conditions, but with your question(s). Your current draft is better, but could still be greatly improved. For example, it still contains too much extra content, and I also do not know why you are asking the question: (a) You have Hungerford's proof, why do you need another? (b) What do you not like about your existing proof? Why is it informal? Your reader is busy - guide them quickly to your issue rather than expecting them to spot why you think it is too informal on a first reading. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jun 20 at 16:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ [This is my final comment though, as this is not the correct place for further suggestions for improvement.] $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jun 20 at 16:17
0
$\begingroup$

Undeleted.

Consider undeleting Taxi distance count to all lattice points at specified distance from the lattice origin and of a specified dimensionality? if you think that the Question-Answer pair is legitimate.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Please reopen this question , HERE I add clarification about the whole context , also I have added known and unknown variables

$\endgroup$
2
0
$\begingroup$

Please reopen

Let $H,K \subseteq G$. Prove $H,K \lhd G$ and $|K| = [G:H]$.

It was closed as needing focus, but if you know the first homomorphism theorem of groups, it's one question (with a normality check that ensures you know which of $\ker\varphi$ and ${\rm im}\varphi$ is automatically normal).

I have answered the question.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Almost surely this is a dupe. $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Aug 20 at 16:14
  • $\begingroup$ Find one and we'll know for sure, @BillDubuque. $\endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Aug 23 at 19:43
  • $\begingroup$ Before posting your answer, your searched and failed to find a dupe? $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Aug 23 at 20:26
  • $\begingroup$ Of course, @BillDubuque. $\endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Aug 23 at 20:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Bill, it also copies an earlier answer that same day. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Sep 9 at 21:21
  • $\begingroup$ It wasn't copied, @amWhy; I explained it in more detail. That's allowed. $\endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Sep 9 at 21:51
  • $\begingroup$ It don't think it should have been deleted. $\endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Sep 9 at 21:52
0
$\begingroup$

Reopened 18 Nov 23; closed again 25 Nov 23

Please reopen

Prove that there are $a,b,c\in G$ with $ab = c$

It has context. The OP was overthinking the answer.

Note: I answered it.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Please undelete and reopen

https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4754844/104041

It was deleted, presumably, because some users do not like the fact that

$$x+1=x-2$$

has $x=\infty$ as a solution; a controversial opinion. The comments say the question is nonsense. It is not.

It is also claimed that it is a PSQ. How? The OP proposed that $\infty$ is a root (but not a solution); that's context. They wanted to understand it.

I have answered the question.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Reminder that per the guidelines above, if you are involved in the post you're requesting for (like having answered it, as you have done here) that you should note it in your request. $\endgroup$
    – KReiser
    Aug 19 at 16:35
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ I see there's a vote to delete Shaun's question. I don't think we should delete good faith posts to this reopen-undeletion thread. It's enough to show disagreement via downvotes. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Aug 19 at 22:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think the linked question is low-quality, and even if it's fixed, it's answered elsewhere on MSE. $\endgroup$
    – KReiser
    Aug 19 at 23:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Those aren't duplicates, @KReiser $\endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Aug 19 at 23:43
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I disagree - each of those questions has an answer that talks about why one cannot do standard arithmetic with infinity. Anyways, I'm not going to be using an undelete/reopen vote here, and I do not wish to continue the conversation further. Good day. $\endgroup$
    – KReiser
    Aug 19 at 23:57
-1
$\begingroup$

Deleted

I posted the question Position of Mathematical Logic [closed]. It is closed as lacking context but it is unclear what context is missing.

I have added the following context.

  • My work
  • My bakground
  • Definitions
  • Motivation

However, reviewers, primarily José Carlos Santos, Another User, and Anne Bauval, leave questions closed without a single comment each time.

Since they won't write what context is missing (although I expect there is no missing context), the only thing I can do is keep adding context until they are satisfied.

However, I have now stopped adding context. This is because the moderators have threatened me by a private message. I will not copy and paste it here because it is private, but they told me to stop adding context or my account will be suspended.

Because of this I am currently unable to actively add context, so please reopen as is, or specify which context is lacking. I believe it is my legitimate right to respond to specific requests.

—

The question was deleted. I improved the question after that.

Xander Henderson says that the question has been edited 20+ times. That's because that the question was closed 19 times or left closed by the review, without commenting on which context is lacking. If the lacking context was pointed out, all I needed was a single edit. The only thing I can do is keep adding context until they are satisfied.I am just doing what I have to do.

$\endgroup$
11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ (1) As a moderator, I cannot quote the message which was sent to you. You, however, are free to share it with anyone. The fact that you have chosen not to makes it difficult to point out how that is certainly not what the message said. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Sep 7 at 1:13
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ (2) The post in question has been edited 20+ times. With most of those edits, you have elected to check the "This fixes the problems with this post" checkbox, which sent the question into the review queue 20ish times. Most of those edits were very minor, and did not fix the underlying problems. Either make substantive edits, or don't send the question for review. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Sep 7 at 1:16
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ (3) Adding more text is not necessarily adding more context. A good question provide the necessary context, and don't waste the reader's time with extra information. A good question lays out that information in an easy to read fashion (not here is my question, and here is a bullet-pointed list of "context", which I am adding to this question just because red tape says that I have to"). Attempt to write an exposition which flows, and is actually explanatory. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Sep 7 at 1:18
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ As an example, you use the abbreviations "ZFC" and "FOL" early in the text, and then define them much later. If you believe that people require this definition, why not write something like "Mathematical logic uses set theory such as Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZFC). ZFC is based on first order logic (FOL)." This makes your question much easier to read. I would suggest that you actually try to read your question, from start to finish. Maybe even read it out loud. See how it sounds. If it doesn't sound good make fixes. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Sep 7 at 1:22
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson I appreciate the lengthy comment you wrote for me, but it is unfortunate that there is not a single mention of which context is missing. $\endgroup$
    – Power
    Sep 7 at 1:26
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ They never say what context is missing because if they do, it will be fulfilled and the question will be reopened. What a nonconstructive behavior. $\endgroup$
    – Hayatsu
    Sep 7 at 11:18
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It is unfortunate that there are few helpful comments there, but Karl's comment is helpful and important - why are you asking this question? There are also other issues which are not about context, for example: questions with yes/no answers are not particularly suited to this site; questions should in general only be asking one question at a time; the hierarchy you state is unclear (e.g. how is it a hierarchy?). [There are no quick fixes here, and probably the best way to proceed is to find well-received questions of a similar type and try to emulate them.] $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Sep 7 at 11:37
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729 I already read Karl’s comment and added context, but I added more in response to your comment. I will solve other issues but the first priority is the context issue, which is the current reason for the closure. I have already written a definition of hierarchy. Thanks for the comment. $\endgroup$
    – Power
    Sep 7 at 12:02
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Power I do not think context is the only reason for the closure. People are unwilling to reopen a question with issues, regardless of the initial close reasons (again, it is unfortunate that there were few helpful comments). I really want to emphasise though that you need to rewrite this question to emulate good questions, rather than continual small edits. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Sep 7 at 12:10
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @user1729 As I understand it, the context is the reason of the current closure. If there is another reason, it will first be reopened by resolving the context issue and then closed for another reason. If they keep requiring context when context is not real reason, without commenting on it, then that doesn’t make sense. $\endgroup$
    – Power
    Sep 7 at 12:31
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ No, the question will nt be reopened and then immediately closed. That is both a waste of curator time and effort, and mechanically pointless, because the reopen reviews can be marked "leave closed" for "still has other issues". $\endgroup$
    – Nij
    Sep 9 at 23:49
-1
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, and then deleted again

Please consider undeleting the following question about limits to infinity: What makes a number big?

I think this question meets the context standards set out on this site, since it identifies a hand-wavey explanation that I suspect many people received when they are first introduced to limits, namely that a limit to infinity is "the value of the function as $x$ gets really big". I certainly remember hearing variants of this "explanation" when I was at school, e.g. that the limit to infinity tells you "what happens when $x$ blows up".

Of course, that "explanation" falls far short of the standards of rigorous mathematics, but that is precisely the reason the question was asked in the first place.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Okay, folks, deleting answers in this thread is generally not okay. Downvote if you disagree, but please do not delete. If nothing else, it is best that the record remain public. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Aug 11 at 13:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The question on main has a very colorful history. Posted 26 Dec 21 4:12; closed 9:16; opened 27 Dec 21 2:09; closed 13:34; deleted 15:08; undeleted 14 Feb 22 12:52; deleted 28 Feb 22 10:10; undeleted 9 Mar 22 7:21; deleted 6 June 22 5:06; undeleted 7 Aug 23 18:33. And I've left out several instances of "left closed in review". $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Aug 12 at 23:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerry What makes a history colorful? Big numbers? $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Nov 10 at 20:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Bill, would you prefer "eventful"? $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 10 at 20:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerry It was wordplay on the question title ("what makes a number big?"). $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Nov 10 at 20:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Bill, what makes a comment subtle? $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Nov 10 at 21:02
1
2
3

You must log in to answer this question.

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