37
votes
$\begingroup$

The purpose of this thread is to help focus the attention of the community on posts that may require exceptional handling. This includes requests for reopen and undeletion votes. A request should be posted as an answer below.

Please do not use this thread to engage in debates on contentious matters (e.g. reasons for closure). 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. Please be polite, and respect the many different viewpoints in our diverse community.

To inform readers of the current (and past) states of the targeted post, please append tags such [REOPENED,RECLOSED] or [UNDELETED] at the start of the answer.

Beware that "short" requests such as "request reopening of <link>" may be automatically converted to comments by the SE software, so you may need to write more (e.g. why you think that the question should be reopened or undeleted).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For reopen requests that are run-of-the-mill (e.g. aren't meant to debate reasons for closure), do you think it would make sense to have a generic reopen-request thread, so that we don't end up with hundreds or thousands of questions on such. Then each request would simply be an answer in the reopen thread, and it being bumped would get the same exposure as a new question. Thoughts? Unless I hear any objections I will create such a thread. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Oct 24 '12 at 17:11
  • $\begingroup$ @Bill: Yes. This crossed my mind after posting this. I agree that it would be a good idea. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 24 '12 at 17:37
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't expect that you would edit this specific question into the general question (I was writing another). But since it is done, we may as well go with it. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Oct 24 '12 at 18:28
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Bill: I saw no reason to wait with that idea. There was no actual discussion in this thread anyway. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 24 '12 at 18:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry: The solution would be to add a few words, I suppose. For example why it should be reopened. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 9 '12 at 12:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf, I opted for cursing the darkness rather than lighting a candle. Anyway, the question has been reopened. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Nov 9 '12 at 21:54
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry: Darkness is just the light's way of proving the empty set exists. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 9 '12 at 21:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Willie: I think that we should delete old reopening requests and perhaps have one post/additional thread for indexing them. I should also think that any request older than $n$ days for some reasonable $n$ should be deleted. If something has not been reopened and the initial votes expired... well, it makes sense to conclude that there aren't that many people interested in reopening. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 30 '12 at 9:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Willie It's probably useful to have some nontrivial history remain so that folks $\rm < 10K$ can gain some idea about what types of questions do get reopened, and what types don't. By quickly scanning the requests it might help to convey some idea of the community consensus on marginal topics. To keep the unopened requests at the top of the active sort, they could easily be bumped if there is still interest. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Dec 1 '12 at 1:44
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Belgi: This is why I prefer to browse Meta with answers sorted by activity. $\endgroup$ – user856 Jan 5 '13 at 21:38
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Belgi Sorting by activity solves the problem. I just bumped the only active discussion to the top with an edit. There are two requests dated by November 2012, which I guess are no longer ongoing conversations (but anyone so inclined can bump them; it's a CW). $\endgroup$ – user53153 Jan 5 '13 at 22:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the workaround, I still think theres no reasons for this to log all reopen request that were/will be made $\endgroup$ – Belgi Jan 5 '13 at 22:10
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Per the (short) discussion in this deleted meta post, I have edited this thread to support requests for votes to undelete as well as votes to reopen. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Jul 13 '14 at 14:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question got protected again; I'd assume, but cannot check, since it fulfills criteria for autoprotection The simplest way out would be to restart a question of this form. IMO this would be desirable regardless the protection issue. $\endgroup$ – quid Oct 17 '14 at 13:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid: Yes, yes, I see that protection triggering every time I remove it. But I gave it some more thought, and for now it seems harmless after all. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 17 '14 at 14:06

213 Answers 213

1 2
3
4 5
8
3
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I recently asked this question and was told it was a duplicate. However, the said "original" question did not satisfactorily answer my question. I was looking to solve the problem a specific way, the other answer took a different approach. Not only that, but my question turned out to be algebraic and calculus based; I did not have a question about the specific probability laws, but whether or not I was using them correctly because I thought I had a recurrence relation. I would like the question reopened so that I may give proper credit to the commenter who answered my question; which, I repeat, was not answered by the "original."

$\endgroup$
3
votes
$\begingroup$

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/690129/85079 please.

The closers didn't comment on what 'missing context or other details' they were vexed about. I wrote 'thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it'?

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Indeed, the close reason seems strange. That one is "unclear what you are asking" just like the other two you have asked about here. $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Feb 26 '14 at 13:11
3
votes
$\begingroup$

Will you please to reopen Intuition - Countable iff Surjection iff Injection [Velleman P310 Thm 7.1.5]?

I asked this separately from my other question strictly about the proof that is now deleted. It shouln't be esteemed a duplicate, because in addition to intuition, I'm also interested in a picture. For want of organisation and focus, I didn't want to ask about all three aspects in one question.

$\endgroup$
3
votes
$\begingroup$

[Re-opened]

I think that How large can the internet be?, a simple combinatorics question, should be re-opened. It was closed because with the way the OP phrased it, it required knowledge on conventions for URLs, but now the OP has provided a mathematically clear definition of "URL" (see the comments) and the question can be answered.

$\endgroup$
3
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I'm not sure why this question was put on hold for being "not about mathematics". There seems to be an answerable question there (with a tentative answer of "yes, in a sense") with some leads by olive euler and Semiclassical in the comments.

$\endgroup$
3
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Finding $\int_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}}\arctan\left(\sin x\right)dx$ was closed as a duplicate of Evaluating a sum involving binomial coefficient in denominator. While the statement of the closed question is mentioned in a later edit to the supposed original, the path leading from the integral to the sum is not part of the supposed original question.

Only half of the closed question is answered in the supposed original question. Therefore, I think that the question should be reopened.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It has 4 reopen votes, so you can cast one without using moderator powers. $\endgroup$ – Jonas Meyer Dec 6 '14 at 16:47
  • $\begingroup$ @JonasMeyer: thanks. Done. $\endgroup$ – robjohn Dec 6 '14 at 17:05
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] I would like the following: is $0.\overline{99}$ the same as $\lim_{x \to 1} x$?

to be reopened. The question is currently closed as a duplicate of Is it true that $0.999999999\ldots = 1$?.

While I agree that at the base is indeed that $0.\overline{9}$ = 1, but the OP actually says that he/she knows the proof of this. It seems like the question is more about the confusion about the function that is introduced in the question. While the question might not be worded perfectly, I don't think that it should be closed.

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

I am attempting to have the following reopened- it is not a duplicate as is evident. Card game-ordering a deck

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ However, it does bear more than a passing resemblance to Problem 9 of the ongoing competition at mit.edu/primes/materials/2013/entproUSA13.pdf $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Nov 26 '12 at 1:25
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Layla Patil: If you want it reopened you should react to others' comments. $\endgroup$ – Phira Nov 30 '12 at 11:03
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]The question A question about series with a strange property. should be re-opened. As the OP remarked the supposed duplicate does not actually answer the question posed.

(More details: the supposed duplicate has two questions in it. One without sign restrictions. The other restricting to positive series. An answer was given and accepted for the latter. But no answer was given for the former. The new question explicitly asks for the former.)

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] This question about a set containing itself was closed as "not a real question", with both posted answers interpreting it as a tautology that $X \subseteq X$. However, the question is really about the paradox $X \in X$; the word contains can have another meaning as $\ni$, and the question actually mentions the axiom of regularity! Granted, it's not a great question, and is easily resolved by prodding the asker about the definition of set complement, but that doesn't make it "not a real question".

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] I would like to see this post reopened.

It is clear that it generated a lot of thought about relations, their properties, etc. Many questions of this nature are posted to this site, and are not closed as "non-constructive." Many students are very interested in "real-life" applications/interpretations of the math they are learning. ${}$

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't think this post should be re-opened, although I agree that "non-constructive" might be off-putting. I think that the question generated a lot of buzz, which is good, but when you have several repeated answers and deletions it's time to close down. If we had "no longer relevant" as a closing reason I would vote that. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 5 '13 at 14:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf I'd suggest protecting the question, if reopened. I do understand your point, and I think if the closure reason could be customized by a moderator to indicate what you suggest, I'd be okay with that. $\endgroup$ – amWhy Jan 5 '13 at 14:12
  • $\begingroup$ I agree and have also voted to reopen. I think protecting the question is more appropriate. $\endgroup$ – TMM Jan 5 '13 at 19:31
  • $\begingroup$ I have to say that I also agree with Asaf. "non-constructive" portrays an inaccurate perspective on what is being meant; it is clear that the question is simply no longer relevant. Although, there's a possibility that a user could input a very interesting answer and I am not entirely sure why this should not occur. I do not fully understand the things between the lines of the FAQ and rules of the site, though! I have not voted to reopen as I do not fully comprehend the critique of those who voted to close and I'd rather not step on any toes. $\endgroup$ – 000 Jan 5 '13 at 19:42
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] Please reopen From a mathematician's point of view, what is the purpose of '$dx$' in $\int f(x)\ dx$?. I had written out (what I thought of as) a nice answer, then just before trying to post it, it was closed as a duplicate of What is $dx$ in integration?.

However, this question is different since it deals with the difference in the way physicists and mathematicians understand $dx$ (something that my answer was going to address).

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] In this question, the OP has edited to point out why the question isn't a duplicate. Please reopen.

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] I would like to see How to prove the earning decomposition of 2 people in mediocristan and extremistan? reopened. Please note that a highly reputed user has added a comment saying: "I would like to reopen and answer."

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The question Probability of random integer's digits summing to 12 was recently closed despite several well-supported requests in the comments that it not be closed (two of the close votes came after these comments were posted) and despite that it was a legitimate question, well-posed, clear, and attracted several constructive answers.

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] This question is a genuine mathematical question that deserves a genuine answer (it was, inexplicably, closed as "non-constructive").

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Well this question seems to be closed now. $\endgroup$ – The Chaz 2.0 May 6 '13 at 3:42
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] This question was closed as a duplicate (by a single binding moderator vote). However, the question is certainly not a duplicate of the linked question, since the author is asking additionally a more general question, namely "What are those number theoretic situations?" (where the unit group is cyclic). This is an interesting question that is not addressed at all in the proposed duplicate.

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] [This question]1 was closed as a duplicate. It's not a duplicate for two reasons. The major reason is that the question was not about how to solve the problem but about where the OP's own calculations went wrong. The minor reason is that the other question is more general and the generality requires more complicated answers that make it more difficult to find the error in the present simpler calculations. Please reopen.

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] (Thanks. That was fast!)

This question was closed, I just found out, because it came as part of a contest, whose deadline has passed. Now that the deadline is behind us, I think it deserves to be reopened, and it may receive interesting answers.

There is also a nice answer that was deleted for this reason, and I believe it should be undeleted as well.

(Related to this: It would be nice if, in case this happens again, all people who posted answers are notified. As I said, I just noticed today, by coincidence, that the question was part of a contest, was closed, and an answer was deleted. A comment informing me would have been appreciated. I imagine other people in similar situations would appreciate such courtesy as well.)

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] (Tons of thanks!)

My question "How to show the relation $<$ is not definable in $(\Bbb N; 0, \operatorname {S})$ by quantifier elimination?" is closed as duplicate.

The fault is on my side, since I weren't aware of the two duplicate questions on this site and failed to add the link to stress the difference between my difficulty and the former OP's. In particular,the thing I want to know is how to show that by quantifier elimination, while the existing answers are both using automorphism.

Now I have edited the question accordingly. Could you please vote to reopen the question?

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

This question was closed as a duplicate of this one. However, the proposed duplicate question seeks only answers not using modular arithmetic, whereas the recent question uses modular arithmetic. The OP of the former question emphasized this restriction when I posted my answer in the old question (since the current one was closed while I composed my answer).

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] I voted to close Books to understand the construction of all groups of a specific order because the OP originally gave a confused presentation. However @JackSchmidt has provided a nicely reworded version, and I have voted to reopen.

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] This question was closed, (I suspect) because it had unprocessed TeX. The question was improved afterwards, and does not deserve to be closed anymore.

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] I would like to see this question re-opened. I believe it was closed because the OP was asking a question which showed a fundamental miss-understanding. Such a question should receive attention, and the OP should be helped. Closing it is, well, pointless.

(Also, if you dig into the closing, you will see that it is closed not because it has five votes to close but because a moderator cast the fourth vote and a moderator's vote is binding (the question is closed immediately). According to the Review, there were three votes to leave open, two to close.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Could the down-voter please tell me their thoughts? I am interested in what you think! Make me change my opinion... $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jul 1 '13 at 12:16
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[Re-opened]

This meta question was closed even after the following comment by anorton:

@Closevoters: This is not a duplicate of the suggested duplicate.. That question is talking about a moderator's action, this one is talking about a normal user's action.

which hits the nail on the head.

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[Re-opened]

Generalizations of fitting subgroup was closed because it was incredibly unclear what was being asked. The original poster clarified the question and it is now clear what is being asked.

I am composing a little essay with references on them as I've been studying generalizations of Fitting subgroups for a while now.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I disagree that it was incredibly unclear. It was only unclear because noone here had come across the notation before (as is, of course, the way with notation). Although it would have been helpful if he had responded to your comment earlier! Anyway, moot point, and your answer is excellent so +1. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jul 11 '13 at 8:00
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] This question was put on hold as unclear. It seems perfectly clear to me, and I’ve just given an answer in the comments.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The answer you gave seems however incorrect. (See main for details.) $\endgroup$ – quid Jul 29 '13 at 0:20
  • $\begingroup$ @quid: It is entirely correct. You’ve misunderstood the question. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Jul 29 '13 at 0:20
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry for commenting here too (likely I should only have written one comment initially), but now I feel the need to clarify also here that the problem was not me misunderstanding the question. More pertinent to the meta discussion, I might however add that the problem indeed seems understandable as written. Whether or not it is up to the standards of this site is unknown to me (not being very familiar with them). $\endgroup$ – quid Jul 29 '13 at 7:24
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I'd like to see this question reopened. Initially, the OP was attempting to prove the (false) statement that an infinite Hausdorff space has infinitely-many isolated points, but altered the question after this was pointed out. It now asks the much more interesting question as to whether every Hausdorff space has an infinite subspace, all of whose points are isolated, based on the example of $\Bbb N$ in $\Bbb R$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ But the new version still has a trivial counterexample. $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Oct 26 '13 at 18:06
  • $\begingroup$ I have fixed it (if I correctly figured out what you meant). $\endgroup$ – Cameron Buie Oct 26 '13 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ However, if there is still a (trivial) counterexample, @Tobias, please post it as an answer, and resolve the issue completely and finally. $\endgroup$ – Cameron Buie Oct 27 '13 at 13:35
  • $\begingroup$ I only meant the finite one. I have not thought further about the infinite one (but since no example pops to mind, I find that it is probably a worthwhile question, even if a trivial counterexample turns out to exist). $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Oct 28 '13 at 7:19
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The author of this question solved the problem after I suggested an approach. Please reconsider now.

$\endgroup$
2
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] Thanks, once again.

Variable weight according to distance.

OP has greatly clarified their question, and a comment inquiry gave enough information to bring it to answerable form. Please reopen.

$\endgroup$
1 2
3
4 5
8

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