# Requests for Reopen & Undeletion Votes, etc. (volume 10/2012 - 12/2014) [duplicate]

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).

• 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. – Bill Dubuque Oct 24 '12 at 17:11
• @Bill: Yes. This crossed my mind after posting this. I agree that it would be a good idea. – Asaf Karagila Oct 24 '12 at 17:37
• 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. – Bill Dubuque Oct 24 '12 at 18:28
• @Bill: I saw no reason to wait with that idea. There was no actual discussion in this thread anyway. – Asaf Karagila Oct 24 '12 at 18:34
• @Gerry: The solution would be to add a few words, I suppose. For example why it should be reopened. – Asaf Karagila Nov 9 '12 at 12:16
• @Asaf, I opted for cursing the darkness rather than lighting a candle. Anyway, the question has been reopened. – Gerry Myerson Nov 9 '12 at 21:54
• @Gerry: Darkness is just the light's way of proving the empty set exists. – Asaf Karagila Nov 9 '12 at 21:55
• @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. – Asaf Karagila Nov 30 '12 at 9:49
• @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. – Bill Dubuque Dec 1 '12 at 1:44
• @Belgi: This is why I prefer to browse Meta with answers sorted by activity. – Rahul Jan 5 '13 at 21:38
• @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). – user53153 Jan 5 '13 at 22:07
• Thanks for the workaround, I still think theres no reasons for this to log all reopen request that were/will be made – Belgi Jan 5 '13 at 22:10
• 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. – Alexander Gruber Jul 13 '14 at 14:59
• 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. – quid Oct 17 '14 at 13:58
• @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. – Asaf Karagila Oct 17 '14 at 14:06

[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.

• 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. – user1729 Jul 11 '13 at 8:00

[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.

• The answer you gave seems however incorrect. (See main for details.) – quid Jul 29 '13 at 0:20
• @quid: It is entirely correct. You’ve misunderstood the question. – Brian M. Scott Jul 29 '13 at 0:20
• 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). – quid Jul 29 '13 at 7:24

[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 $\Bbb R$.

• But the new version still has a trivial counterexample. – Tobias Kildetoft Oct 26 '13 at 18:06
• I have fixed it (if I correctly figured out what you meant). – Cameron Buie Oct 26 '13 at 18:14
• However, if there is still a (trivial) counterexample, @Tobias, please post it as an answer, and resolve the issue completely and finally. – Cameron Buie Oct 27 '13 at 13:35
• 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). – Tobias Kildetoft Oct 28 '13 at 7:19

[REOPENED]

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

[REOPENED] Thanks, once again.

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

[REOPENED]

The OP of this question has reposted the question in more precise terms. I thought it was safe to edit the original to reflect his/her expressed question, and I think it's worth reopening with the added details (note that the answer already existing only mentions a compact Hausdorff $X$, whereas the OP didn't seem to want the scope to be thus limited).

[REOPENED]

It seems that I was too quick to suggest closing this question as an exact duplicate: Find the limit of $(\sqrt2-\root3\of2 )(\sqrt2 -\root4\of2 )...(\sqrt 2-\root{n}\of2 )$ without using the squeezing principle

As Thomas Andrews says in his comment this question asks explicitly about proofs not using squeezing theorem.

The other questions about the same limit do not have such proof. (Finding the limit of roots products $(\sqrt{2}-\sqrt[3]{2})(\sqrt{2}-\sqrt[4]{2})(\sqrt{2}-\sqrt[5]{2})\cdot \cdot \cdot (\sqrt{2}-\sqrt[n]{2})$, What is $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}(\sqrt2-\sqrt[3]2)\cdots(\sqrt2-\sqrt[n]2)$? How to approach?)

[Reopened; reclosed ]

This question was closed as unclear. It should be clear to anyone who’s seen parenthesis notation for trees — admittedly more common in linguistics than in mathematics, but hardly unheard of there — and I’d like to answer it. I’d answer it in a comment, but in this case a good answer requires a diagram.

• Despite normally being against this, the only reason I am voting to reopen is that you said that you want to answer that question. – Asaf Karagila Dec 1 '13 at 18:17
• @Asaf: Many thanks! – Brian M. Scott Dec 1 '13 at 18:18
• Brian, no need for many. One would suffice. ;-) – Asaf Karagila Dec 1 '13 at 18:22
• @Asaf: It was an easy way to beat the character limit! (‘Thanks!’ came up one short.) – Brian M. Scott Dec 1 '13 at 18:22
• Thank you very much! (five letter beyond the limit) ;-) – Asaf Karagila Dec 1 '13 at 18:28
• Voted to re-close. This is a stereotypical PSQ, and it is in the general benefit of the site for regulars to show self-restraint in not answering these. – Carl Mummert Dec 2 '13 at 0:24
• @Carl: In my view both of your assertions are false. (1) The OP is apparently completely lost, and I judge that this is a case in which a full explanation now is probably the best way to help. (2) Not by any measure that I’m willing to accept; rather the opposite, in fact. – Brian M. Scott Dec 2 '13 at 0:35

[REOPENED]

The author of this question has offered an example which I think now makes the question clear.

[REOPENEND]

Limit of $\sqrt{x^2-6x+7}-x$ as x approaches negative infinity
This question was closed as missing context or other details.

User comments, in particular this one show that they made some effort. (I hope the OP will post his solution either as an answer or edit it into the question after it is reopened.)

I think the question should be reopened.

[REOPENED]

This question was closed as missing context or other details.

The OPs replies to my hint demonstrate that they are thinking about what is going on. They are not just after some quick and easy solution for a homework question which they can hand in.

Therefore, I think the question should be reopened.

[REOPENED]

I think the following question should be re-opened.

Content of the book "Group Theory Seminar Lectures:1960-1961"

The question is asking about the contents of a specific book. I cannot find anything on the internet about what is in this book, and it is not in my uni's library. I fail to see how this question can possible be "too broad". Presumably it contains some papers, so the titles of these papers would be a sufficient answer. A more vague answer, for example saying "finite $p$-groups" would also be clearly acceptable.

If you do not think that this question should be re-opened, then I would be interested to know how you would suggest the OP found out this information, without having to buy this book?

• The question as posed is too broad, and lacks context. You have now gotten some useful comments on it, but for the future, you could have 1. explained why you are interested in it, 2. explained that you have been unable to find any information about what it contains, 3. explained that you were looking for very general information rather than all the theorems and proofs contained in the book. – dfeuer Jan 16 '14 at 6:18
• @dfeuer I was the one who provided the useful comments, not the OP. .. (Also, from the context, I believe that (3) was clear.) – user1729 Jan 16 '14 at 10:57

[REOPENED]

It is a reasonable reference request on whether Cantor's (well documented) views on religion influenced his choice of notation. I think there are common misconceptions here, and this question can be a good place to at least start addressing them.

• While possibly interesting, I fail to see how it is a question about mathematics. – mrf Jan 21 '14 at 9:30

[REOPENED]

This question was unilaterally put on hold by a moderator, as missing context and details. The question has since been edited to include the thoughts and efforts of the asker, and so should be reopened.

[REOPENED]

The question Unions and the axiom of choice. was edited and some context was given. I'd like to see it reopened so I can post an answer.

I asked this question yesterday and it quickly received downvotes for being "opinionated." I then changed it to have the wording "Mental Math Tricks" in the title and "What are some interesting mental math tricks that you know?" as the question. After this change, a fifth vote was cast to put the question on hold as "primarily opinion-based" on the basis that "answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise."

Please note that I specifically urged posters to provide justification for their tricks, and that I did not intend (as I clarified in the comments) to select a single "best trick" as the answer - hence my tagging the question under "soft-question" and "big-list".

I also queried "For those of you who downvoted, do you still consider the question opinion based? Is there anything I could do to make it better?" but got no response. I'm fairly new to this forum and I don't actually know what "putting on hold" technically means, but I would be very grateful if this question could be re-opened for contributions. Please note also that it was given 4 upvotes and 2 favorites (the third was my own), suggesting my feelings are shared by at least some members of the community.

Can this be reversed? If the five members who put the post on hold propose to sustain their objections, how do they justify the claim that this question qualifies for "primarily opinion-based"? Also, please indicate if there is a standard process for dealing with this of which I am unaware. I have flagged the question to no avail.

[REOPENED] for the 2nd time

This question was put on hold because it shows no effort. I edited the question to show my effort. I hope it will be reopened.

• I am voting to reopen; the current closure reason no longer applies to the question: There is now sufficient context and details. Although I would strongly prefer that in the future the question be self-contained (e.g. the proof to be discussed / analyzed is provided in the question, rather than in an answer added later), I don't think this is reason for closure. – user61527 Apr 21 '14 at 18:45
• I agree with @T.Bongers and have voted to reopen (and will post an answer if reopened). – Asaf Karagila Apr 21 '14 at 20:48

I revised the question. Language and content are clear now. Closers didn't comment on what they were vexed about, but please tell me if anything needs to be bettered.

My questions are marked and I already updated the question. Therefore I don't see what's 'unclear what you're asking'?

• Combining the quoted text, the image in the question, and that there are at least two external links that have to be read to complete the question, it's a rather difficult read. – user61527 May 5 '14 at 4:26
• The question has since been auto-deleted. – user61527 May 20 '14 at 22:10

[REOPENED]

My query Applications of Countable Infinite Sets and Power Sets was put on-hold as it was not clear. I have edited it and hope it is a little better now. I am new to this forum and so if it still not fine then I would be glad if anyone could suggest how to make it fit. Otherwise, I would request that it is kindly re-opened so that I may get some answers.

[REOPENED; RECLOSED]

Please consider reopening this question. Although the question itself may be naive, it does seem clear enough.

• Needs 2 reopen votes. – Bill Dubuque Jun 2 '14 at 1:29
• @BillDubuque - It seems that the question got reopened and then closed again, because the OP doesn't provide attempts to solve the "problem". Do you have any idea why this question is controversial, but this one, which doesn't per se provide "work shown" or attempts to solve, is wildly popular? I visit this site only very sporadically, and I am rather unclear on the current standards being applied to questions. – John M Jun 2 '14 at 13:51
• No, I strongky disagree with such closures. This is one of many bad side-effects of the extremely poor design of the SE platform. – Bill Dubuque Jun 2 '14 at 13:58
• @Bill Dubuque: I think the solution here is to avoid re-opening these questions before the OP edits them. Although I have not voted to close, I pointed out before the question was re-opened that it would still be a candidate for closure. – Carl Mummert Jun 2 '14 at 14:03
• @John M: I speculate that the difference is some combination of: (1) the level of the question (2) the fact that one is on standard facts, while the other is open, and (3) different people see different questions. It would be ideal for Sawarnik's question ( math.stackexchange.com/q/791378/630 ) to include something else, perhaps an explanation of where the problem was encountered. – Carl Mummert Jun 2 '14 at 14:06
• @CarlMummert I disagree. Rather, I think the solution it to avoid closing them in the first place. Instead, users that are biased against any particular class of questions should lobby SE to give them better ways to filter questions. Forcing such bias globally onto the entire community is a recipe for failure. – Bill Dubuque Jun 2 '14 at 14:12
• @Bill Dubuque: This issue has been discussed at length on meta, as you are well aware. For example, see meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/9201/… , which has 65 upvotes (+87/-19) at this moment. Moreover, there would not be a "lacking context" reason in the closure menu if community support for it was not patently clear. Therefore, nobody is "forcing such bias" onto the community. The community simply has a bias against such questions, for reasons of which I am certain you are already aware. – Carl Mummert Jun 2 '14 at 14:26
• @Carl As I said, the SE platform is extremely poorly designed. It makes no sense to expect "majority" opinions to be wise on topics (like teaching) where the majority (students) have little to no experience. And if you think that you should have the right to choose for others what questions they are allowed to value/answer then we have such widely disparate views on how such a general level math forum should function that there is little point in continuing. – Bill Dubuque Jun 2 '14 at 14:39
• @Carl In any case, as I wrote when I created this thread, this is not supposed to be a place for such discussion. – Bill Dubuque Jun 2 '14 at 14:42
• @Bill Dubuque: this thread was created by John M, not by you. I think that the thread for each question for which re-opening is requested is a reasonable place to discuss the merits of that question. What I would not find reasonable would be to claim that it is somehow surprising that the question here was closed - the question is an obvious candidate for closure in its present form. That ship has sailed. But there is an ongoing need to help users understand the community consensus on these matters (which, I want to emphasize, was shaped by teachers concerned with low quality questions!). – Carl Mummert Jun 2 '14 at 14:49
• @Carl - Thanks very much! I think I get the gist of the issues involved. – John M Jun 2 '14 at 14:51
• @Bill - Thank very much! I think I now get the gist of the issues involved. – John M Jun 2 '14 at 14:52
• @Carl The "thread" refers to this entire thread, i.e. the reopen request thread (which was proposed and designed by me, even though Asaf morphed his question into it before I had a chance to discuss and post it - see the comments to the question). As the question says, this thread is not intended for extensive discussion. – Bill Dubuque Jun 2 '14 at 14:54

[REOPENED]

I'd like to request that this post be reopened. The OP has clarified what the question is and in fact answered it himself yesterday. Therefore the reasons of lack of clarity or lack of effort are not valid for leaving it closed.

[REOPENED]

This question was closed as a duplicate of a previous question. However, the previous question has a rather incomplete answer while the new one (the duplicate) received a very detailed answer. The new question should be reopened since it's more "canonical".

[REOPENED]

This question seems crystal-clear despite the fact that the poster's command of English is weak.

Ordered field with nested intervals axiom without Archimedean axiom

[REOPENED]

This question was closed for lacking context. It has now been improved, and should be reopened.

[REOPENED]

Please consider reopening Find parameters of short geometric series. In its original form the Question was a slightly puzzling query-by-example, but it has now been clarified. I think it has the makings of good content.

Although the problem is upon analysis like the old chestnut of finding compound interest rate parameters, the User's application is different. The User hopes to solve such problems "by algebra" and may well learn that, apart from mere trial-and-error, such polynomial root finding needs a touch more math.

[REOPENED, RECLOSED, REOPENED]

I believe that this question should be reopened. It is asking why $i\times 0=0$, but has been closed as "unclear what you are asking". I do not see why this is unclear: it is very clear! Moreover, $i\times0=0$ is a theorem, but the OP thinks it is assumed - this is a chance to help someone! Why waste the chance by closing the question...?

• "i×0=0 is a theorem" Hmmmm... :-) – Did Jul 30 '14 at 10:50
• @Did Well, it isn't an axiom! :-) – user1729 Jul 30 '14 at 10:53
• @user1729: So it's just a conjecture? :-) – Asaf Karagila Aug 6 '14 at 6:52

[REOPENED; RECLOSED (AS A DUPLICATE)]

I would like to reopen this question, so that it may be reclosed as an appropriate duplicate.

[Undeleted]

Please vote for undelete this question.

It asks for an important property of Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity, and the answer I've posted there could be useful for future readers.

Thanks.

• Voted to undelete. Wonder what prompted the OP to delete in the first place? – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 9 '14 at 17:06
• @JyrkiLahtonen Thanks. I think the OP has considered the question trivial (although he asked for the wrong inequality). – user26857 Aug 9 '14 at 17:11
• FYI, @user26857, it's undeleted now. – Daniel Fischer Aug 9 '14 at 17:16
• @DanielFischer Thank you all. – user26857 Aug 9 '14 at 17:17

[REOPENED]

I believe that this question should be reopened. It was closed as "unclear", but it is clear (and further clarity can be found in the comments below the question).

• Would the downvoter care to comment? Are you saying it is unclear? – user1729 Aug 7 '14 at 14:55