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).

$\endgroup$
27
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ Oct 24, 2012 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 Mod
    Oct 24, 2012 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. $\endgroup$ Oct 24, 2012 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 Mod
    Oct 24, 2012 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 Mod
    Nov 9, 2012 at 12:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf, I opted for cursing the darkness rather than lighting a candle. Anyway, the question has been reopened. $\endgroup$ Nov 9, 2012 at 21:54
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry: Darkness is just the light's way of proving the empty set exists. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Nov 9, 2012 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 Mod
    Nov 30, 2012 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. $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2012 at 1:44
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Belgi: This is why I prefer to browse Meta with answers sorted by activity. $\endgroup$
    – user856
    Jan 5, 2013 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, 2013 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, 2013 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 Mod
    Jul 13, 2014 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 Mod
    Oct 17, 2014 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 Mod
    Oct 17, 2014 at 14:06

213 Answers 213

1
4 5
6
7 8
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question should never have been put on hold in the first place, as it was obvious that the OP was asking for verification of the arguments. This request has now been explicitly added, and the question should be reopened.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I do not understand the downvotes here. How is this contentious?!? $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Oct 28, 2014 at 19:14
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The question Monty Hall Problem was closed as duplicate.

It does however not ask for the usual Monty Hall Problem but a variant thereof. There is some very small room of interpretation what is meant exactly but I feel it is clear enough and is answerable.

The answer is not obvious in my opinion (there are other variants that are simpler) and while it is discussed on the linked to question it is somewhat implict and in an answer way down by votes; I feel at least this should have been indicated. But actually I feel the question should be answered on its own.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The question isotopy of homeomorphisms of a torus was edited to make it a viable mathematical question, which now can be read as "How to show that a homeomorphism of a torus which is homotopic to the identity is isotopic to the identity?". This is now a good question, which fits into the general framework of topological rigidity problems and should be reopened.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I don't think Unbounded family of functions from $\mathbb{N}$ to $\mathbb{N}$ should be closed as a duplicate of https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/243044/the-family-of-all-unbounded-functions-on-natural-numbers-is-uncountable

The main difference (between the current versions) is that one asks to show that any unbounded family is uncountable. (In the other words, this is asking for the proof that the $\mathfrak b\ge\aleph_1$, where $\mathfrak b$ denotes the bounding number.) The other one asks to show that the family of all unbounded functions is uncountable. These are clearly two different questions.

In addition to that, the first question asks about $\leq^*$-unbounded families. The other does not specify this, but I would expect that it asks about the usual notion of unbounded function.

It is quite probable that the OP wanted to post the same question, but the two questions are definitely not the same (the way they are worded).

Review on the question I have mentioned above is already finished. With the result leave closed.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[UNDELETED][REDELETED][REUNDELETED]

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/432742/calculate-start-middle-and-end-of-any-number was closed as "unclear what you are asking" after it had an answer accepted by the poster (so it was clear to at least one person what OP was asking). Then a year-and-a-half later it was deleted, despite having an upvoted, accepted answer. I have voted to undelete.

EDIT: Question (and answer) redeleted (after I edited to clarify question). I have (re)voted to re-undelete.

$\endgroup$
0
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).

$\endgroup$
0
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question has been closed as a duplicate of this one. While two of the five parts are the same and the other three are similar, it is not, in fact, a duplicate (except, perhaps, in the vaguest sense that they are asking the same kinds of questions). I request that it be reopened.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Cameron, had this question been even remotely well-written, and show any hint of effort I'd be glad to vote for reopening. Two of the five statements are exact copies, two more differ by what I can't tell whether or not is an actual difference or very sloppy typing; and the fifth one is most definitely a duplicate of some other question on the site. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Jul 2, 2013 at 11:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf: Fair enough. I'm not opposed to the question being closed in principle. I'd merely like the close reason to be an accurate representation of the situation. $\endgroup$ Jul 2, 2013 at 12:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Cameron, since I lost my closure privileges on that question and it's really not a good question, what would you suggest that should happen when the next person casts a reopen vote? Should the parts which are exact duplicate from the other thread be removed, then the question should be closed as a duplicate of some other question? Should the question be closed as unclear/ambiguous/effortless post? I'm all ears. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Jul 2, 2013 at 12:15
  • $\begingroup$ It isn't a good question, true. That's certainly reason not to upvote it, and arguably reason to downvote it. The closure rules did just get revamped, so maybe there's even reason to close it, but the reason given isn't quite right. I'm not quite sure what to do, though. I have put this forth as a question on meta here, if you'd like to give your input. $\endgroup$ Jul 2, 2013 at 12:43
0
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] This question should be re-opened because, the words of the OP,

"I was sharing my knowledge not homework. I saw that you could answer your own questions Q&A style."

Which is allowed! Need I say more? (Other than, perhaps, can people please be more careful when they close a question?)

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ I do not agree. Here is my comment at that question: "This site is meant as a Q&A-site for questions, with which you stuck and for which you need other peoples help. It is not meant as a site where we create a repository of problems & answers out of some books or from your own compilations. (Why not creating such a site if it does not yet exist?)" math.stackexchange.com/questions/451381/… . There is also one more comment of mine against a subsequent argument. $\endgroup$ Jul 26, 2013 at 11:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GottfriedHelms You are disagreeing with a specific functionality of the site. If you disagree with it you should start a Meta question discussing it, rather than close a question which uses it. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jul 26, 2013 at 11:03
  • $\begingroup$ I'm disagreeing with misusing a functionality of a site against its intention. As everybody knows about software implementation, often some functionality of a software cannot be avoided (or was not seen in the begnning) which allows to counter the intention of the software. (For instance, the functionality also allows spam, but this is not intended). As I told in the comment at the question, I'll do not continue that discussion on this level of disagreement with you (it's a fundamental disagreement over the intention of our site) $\endgroup$ Jul 26, 2013 at 11:08
  • $\begingroup$ @GottfriedHelms I don't understand your point. The OP of this question was using this functionality in the way it was designed to be used! (And as I said in the question, I am not claiming to hold an opinion about the basic intention of this site (hence I cannot be disagreeing with you about it). Rather, I am pointing out an existing functionality. What I have an opinion about is that someone should not be criticised for using this functionality.) $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jul 26, 2013 at 11:09
  • $\begingroup$ There is no agreement that this sort of thing is ok at MSE. Just because something is allowed on stackoverflow does not mean it is allowed on all the sites in the stackexchange network (that said, there is also not an agreement that it is not ok). $\endgroup$ Jul 26, 2013 at 11:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TobiasKildetoft It has been discussed before. The most recent Meta question I could find is from a year ago, here. It seems that the opinion was "This is okay, just don't make the site into your personal blog/soapbox", but perhaps I have misinterpreted this (mostly my interpretation comes from Henning Makholm's post). $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jul 26, 2013 at 13:08
  • $\begingroup$ But one thing mentioned in the answer by Henning is that an obvious requirement should be that the asker would feel this is something someone else might want to look up on the site. But for this question, there is already a question asking about differentiating $x^x$ which is completely analogous, so no need for one with $x^{1/x}$. $\endgroup$ Jul 26, 2013 at 13:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @TobiasKildetoft Then the question should be closed as a duplicate. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jul 26, 2013 at 13:23
  • $\begingroup$ (@TobiasKildetoft As an aside: Should we perhaps be discussing this feature on meta properly? I can see both sides of the argument and it is contentious, so perhaps it should have an annual airing?) $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jul 26, 2013 at 13:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That might be a good idea, though I doubt any sort of consensus will be found. $\endgroup$ Jul 26, 2013 at 13:37
0
votes
$\begingroup$

The person who asked this question has now added the missing photograph, and it’s now clear what is wanted: an example of a regular, non-normal space other than the Sorgenfrey plane. I expect that the OP would like a simpler example. (Note: it’s clear from the photo that the notes use the backwards convention in which $T_3$ and $T_4$ do not include $T_1$.)

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You seem to be putting much of yourself into this: according to their own comments, the OP does not ask for an example of a space with such-and-such properties, they want to "know whether (their) examples are correct or incorrect". (Unrelated: are you actually able to read the photograph?) $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Sep 29, 2013 at 7:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Did: That comment hadn’t yet been made when I posted this request. I actually can read the photo with a bit of work just as Firefox displays it on the question page, but I don’t bother: it’s easy to read when I open the image in a new tab and view it at actual size instead of reduced to fit the screen. $\endgroup$ Sep 29, 2013 at 19:08
  • $\begingroup$ The chronology is irrelevant to my point. What do you think of "it’s now clear what is wanted" in your post here? $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Sep 29, 2013 at 19:16
  • $\begingroup$ @Did: Isn’t it obvious? What he said at the time was reasonably clear; it also turns out not to have been what he wanted to say. shrug It happens. It’s also beside the main point, which is that he added the missing photo. $\endgroup$ Sep 29, 2013 at 19:32
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry but as far as we know the OP always said exactly what they wanted to say. I have no idea why you pretend otherwise (furthermore, declaring that it is "obvious" that they did). But hey, this universe is full of mysteries, aint'it? $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Oct 1, 2013 at 12:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Did: If you really believe your first sentence, you must live in an ivory tower and have very little contact with real people. $\endgroup$ Oct 1, 2013 at 19:04
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the compliment. Of course, the first sentence refers to this OP and to this question, not to every question and every user on the site (to even imagine that I would argue that in every question etc. ..., wow!). And "always" refers to the fact that at no stage of the question, the OP said what you based your request for reopening upon. $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Oct 1, 2013 at 19:08
0
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Please reopen Are these sets with orbits subgroups of $S_A$ = set of all permutations of A? - Fraleigh p. 86 8.41-8.43.

My questions are marked with numbers (1.) to (3.) and I already updated the question. Therefore I don't see what's 'unclear what you're asking'?

The people who closed did not comment on what's 'unclear'.

$\endgroup$
0
votes
$\begingroup$

The 2012 question Prime counting inequality was put "on hold" two days ago, with the reason "unclear what you are asking".

I think the question is clear: what is the largest $c$ such that $\pi(x)>cx/\ln x$ for all integers $x$ [in the range where function $\pi$ makes sense]? It admits an answer: $c=\ln 2/2$. Not a very exciting answer, but not entirely trivial either. I see no reason at all for this question to be closed.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Ah, but you are misquoting the question: it was asked for all integers $n$, not $x$. This led to a commenter asking whether $n$ was supposed to be $x$, a question which the author did not answer. So, technically, the question is unclear. But on the whole I don't see where closing it does any good. $\endgroup$ Mar 3, 2014 at 6:40
0
votes
$\begingroup$

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/713610/having-elements-as-ideals . The question is in my opinion clear (I have edited it to make it maximally clear). The main problem of clarity seems to be other people assuming I am unclearly expressing an idea other than the idea I am expressing explicitly, because its such an odd idea/question. That is, they assume I am being unclear or figurative because they refuse to take my words at face value.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Without rendering a judgement on the question itself, "The main problem of clarity seems to be other people assuming I am unclearly expressing an idea other than the idea I am expressing" seems to be the very definition of "unclear." $\endgroup$
    – user61527
    Mar 16, 2014 at 18:59
  • $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers Point well taken. I clarify in the next sentence what I mean though. People are assuming I am being figurative or mistaken, instead of just reading the words I am writing as literal. $\endgroup$ Mar 16, 2014 at 19:10
0
votes
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
0
votes
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – user61527
    Apr 21, 2014 at 18:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with @T.Bongers and have voted to reopen (and will post an answer if reopened). $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Apr 21, 2014 at 20:48
0
votes
$\begingroup$

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/709609/85079 https://math.stackexchange.com/q/676630/85079

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.

$\endgroup$
0
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Please reopen A sequence converges $\iff$ it's Cauchy. Proof of ($\Leftarrow$) (Abbott p 59 t2.6.4)

I revised the question. I tried to revise the issues in the comments. Please write me if something needs to be bettered.

$\endgroup$
0
votes
$\begingroup$

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/771467/53934

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

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – user61527
    May 5, 2014 at 4:26
  • $\begingroup$ The question has since been auto-deleted. $\endgroup$
    – user61527
    May 20, 2014 at 22:10
0
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.

$\endgroup$
0
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED; RECLOSED]

I am requesting that this question be re-opened.

I think it is an interesting question. It remind me of model theory and of category theory - it is almost a meta-mathematical question. I have no idea if it can be answered but that is no reason for it to be closed. That is: it is a question that so far noone knows how to answer it, but that does not mean that it does not admit an answer.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Would the downvoter care to comment? I want to hear your opinion :-) $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Jun 13, 2014 at 11:22
  • $\begingroup$ The question now has $4$ reopen votes. $\endgroup$
    – user61527
    Jun 14, 2014 at 22:54
  • $\begingroup$ And now at $4$ votes to close. $\endgroup$
    – user61527
    Jun 19, 2014 at 2:55
0
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED; RECLOSED]

This question should be reopened. It originally contained an opinion that has since been deleted from it, and apparently in consequence of that now-deleted opinion it was closed as an opinion-based question. Per Manne's comment under the question is a good answer, but it cannot be posted as an answer.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ If 'How would you change math notation' is not 'primarily opinion-based', I don't know what is. $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Jul 13, 2014 at 19:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I agree with reopening this question, but I think it ought to be made CW (and probably tagged big-list). $\endgroup$
    – user61527
    Jul 13, 2014 at 21:39
  • $\begingroup$ Two people are reported to have voted to re-open this question after it was closed for the second time. I am told that I cannot vote to reopen it again. Are only those who didn't vote to reopen it the first time allowed to vote now? $\endgroup$ Jul 14, 2014 at 19:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Michael: This is how I remember the behavior for quite a long time now. You get one close vote, you get one reopen vote; you get infinite delete and undelete votes (although using all of them may pose a challenge to modern physics, since there is a 30 delete votes daily limit). $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Jul 14, 2014 at 22:29
0
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I would like to request to open this thread https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/886640/linear-transformation-representing-the-derivative-of-map.

The given reason was - "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – 900 sit-ups a day, Ivo Terek, rogerl, le gâteau au fromage, Adam Hughes

However, I had already answered my own question. I wanted people to comment on my answer. I had already put down my thoughts below and they put it on hold for the question lacking the same! They should not have done what they did!

$\endgroup$
0
votes
$\begingroup$

This question was closed and there are two votes to delete. If it is deleted, then my answer gets deleted with it. I think my answer contributes useful mathematical content to m.se, and I ask you not to vote to delete.

If the question does get deleted, consider this a request for undeletion.

EDIT: Never mind. Question got deleted, so I reposted it myself, with my answer.

$\endgroup$
12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Needs 2 more undelete votes. How very sad that a small group of users are repeatedly destroying valuable site content in this manner. Yet another major flaw in the SE model. $\endgroup$ Sep 5, 2014 at 2:43
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It's a PSQ from what looks like a throwaway account. The fact that the answer doesn't match any of the options specified by the OP means that the OP misstated their intended question, or that it was misunderstood. In either case, we'll never know, apart from the miniscule chance that the OP returns to clarify. In that case, I would welcome an undeletion. Otherwise, deleting it seems like reasonable cleanup to me (it is voted -5 after all) $\endgroup$ Sep 5, 2014 at 3:15
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque Luckily there is a model without this flaw. $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Sep 5, 2014 at 3:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Thursday Yahoo! Glad to see that you found a more appropriate forum for your campaign. $\endgroup$ Sep 5, 2014 at 5:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I was one of the deleters. This was a tough call. Gerry's answer is most certainly worth keeping, but the question was abysmal. Reposting was a very good idea! Hopefully other people who feel that their deleted answers should stay on the site follow suit $\endgroup$ Sep 5, 2014 at 6:16
  • $\begingroup$ How does the reposted question statement differ from the reposted one? Could someone shed some light on this for this measly 4-figure rep user? $\endgroup$
    – Daniel R
    Sep 5, 2014 at 6:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Daniel, at the time it was deleted, it read, "7 friends went to see a movie, at the time of interval they went away, in how many ways when they come back can seat that no 2 adjacent people will not seat together?" $\endgroup$ Sep 5, 2014 at 7:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JyrkiLahtonen Could you explain why you think reposting a more or less verbatim copy of a question that you found was worthy of a delete vote is a very good idea? $\endgroup$
    – Daniel R
    Sep 5, 2014 at 7:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm legitimately trying to understand why you would have gone to all this trouble, and not bothered to edit the actual question into something more comprehensible? The authors original question no longer matters, it's now your question and a self-answer. I can't see what is gained by not just making it, at least, a slightly better question. $\endgroup$
    – Scott H.
    Sep 5, 2014 at 8:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Scott, I thought I did make it a better question. Feel free to edit and make it even better. $\endgroup$ Sep 5, 2014 at 9:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DanielR: A good question - in the sense that it isn't crystal clear. The original version had many tell-tale signs of a very bad question. One of the commenters even suggested that it was sent from an exam with a smartphone (broken/telegraph English tips that way, but is inconclusive as it came from a non-native speaker). Deleting such a question is then more about sending a signal. Reposting takes away the urgency/potential cheating aspect. Also Gerry can be relied upon to produce readable English. But, if your point was to somehow question my motives, then you may have a point... $\endgroup$ Sep 5, 2014 at 12:13
  • $\begingroup$ (cont'd) It IS a lot easier to approve of a question when it carries a Gerry Myerson stamp of approval. May be it shouldn't play a role, but it does. Sue me? $\endgroup$ Sep 5, 2014 at 12:15
0
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question was closed as unclear. It seems to me that it's clear what is asked: how to compute the height (what was up with all these comments about a misspelling?) of an algebraic number. Perhaps these people think the question isn't interesting, too easy... But it's not unclear. Someone even managed to answer the question and the OP was happy with the answer, so it can't have been that unclear?

$\endgroup$
9
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What's unclear is why someone would give a simple formula for some quantity, and then ask how to compute that quantity. If I posted, "The trace of $\pmatrix{a&b\cr c&d\cr}$ is $a+d$. How do I compute the trace of $\pmatrix{a&b\cr c&d\cr}$?" then you might be forgiven for thinking that my question was unclear, or, rather, that it was unclear how I could possibly be asking what I seemed to be asking. As for the spelling, if you look at the edit history, you'll find in the original it was spelled "hight" all the way through. But you are correct that someone gave an answer that satisfied OP. $\endgroup$ Oct 7, 2014 at 11:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerry Yes, I saw that "hight" was later edited to "height", but I'm saying that commenting again and again on that misspelling was pointless. And the OP was responding very quickly in the comments and clarifying his issue, I don't understand the point of closing as unclear when the OP is obviously very confused himself. $\endgroup$ Oct 7, 2014 at 12:00
  • $\begingroup$ I would think a confused OP would be the best possible reason to close as unclear. But I think the question was closed (or "put on hold", whatever) way too fast. New users should be given 24 hours to clarify posts before we close them for "unclear" or "no effort". $\endgroup$ Oct 7, 2014 at 12:03
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerry I disagree, IMO if the OP is confused and you can explain away the confusion, the best thing to do is explain, not close as unclear; even if the OP's confusion makes it so that it's not clear what precisely is asked. Here it looks like that just giving an example of computation was enough for the OP to understand. $\endgroup$ Oct 7, 2014 at 12:05
  • $\begingroup$ If I were to post, "What's the volume of a square, in terms of its standard deviation?" that would show a certain degree of confusion on my part, and I'd expect my question to be closed as "unclear" owing to that. Although I would hope to be given a chance to clarify it. $\endgroup$ Oct 7, 2014 at 12:13
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerry I think that's different. Here you are asking a question, but it doesn't make any sense. It's not clear what you're asking. There, the OP asked a question, but it's not clear why he's asking, since he already gave himself the definition of what he's asking for...! From my point of view, it means that he didn't really understand what he wrote and that he needs it to be explained, even if he doesn't know how to ask for it. $\endgroup$ Oct 7, 2014 at 12:18
  • $\begingroup$ What do you want from me? I've already indicated that the voters should have exercised more patience. Let it go! $\endgroup$ Oct 7, 2014 at 12:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry I don't want anything, I'm just trying to explain my reasoning... Sorry if I have offended or annoyed you... $\endgroup$ Oct 7, 2014 at 12:24
  • $\begingroup$ Anyway, it appears the question has been reopened. $\endgroup$ Oct 7, 2014 at 12:30
0
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question by a new user was put on hold within about an hour of being posted, despite OP's demonstrated willingness to improve it. I suggest we reopen it and give OP the chance to post an answer.

And I suggest, as I have several times in the past, that we cut new users some slack.

$\endgroup$
0
votes
$\begingroup$

I'd like to see this post to be reopened. OP didn't provide context, and hence the question was put on hold. I added some context to improve it. In my opinion, seeing applications of Baire Category Theorem in this context is valuable.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For questions of the "no context but someone's added some" type, I prefer to wait a week before voting to re-open, because "context" should be about the OP and the question (what they know, is it homework, etc.) The "a week" is so that their homework deadline will have passed, and also there is no rush - the question can still be opened next week... $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Oct 14, 2014 at 8:15
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729: Good point. :) $\endgroup$
    – Prism
    Oct 14, 2014 at 8:37
  • $\begingroup$ I am glad you think so! Also, I wish people would not downvote these questions. It does seem like a good question, but if it were to be reopened it would have a horrendous score. Ah well... $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Oct 14, 2014 at 8:49
0
votes
$\begingroup$

[UNDELETED (still closed)] [RE-DELETED]

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/704634/small-groups-for-church was clarified BEFORE the last vote to delete was cast. Please, read the edit at the end of the question and you will see that it is perfectly clear.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Even clarified, it's still a PSQ from March posted by a user who has been inactive since March. It seems like a reasonable deletion candidate to me. Now I see that it was edited by you rather than by the absent OP - to me, that makes the edit much less compelling as a reason to revisit the question. $\endgroup$ Oct 29, 2014 at 14:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't see where it matters who edited it, @Carl. If anything, given that I edited it AND answered it, it can hardly be called a PSQ any more. It's a serious, if low-level, mathematical question with a serious answer that someone might find useful some day. I'm not asking for re-opening, just for undeletion. $\endgroup$ Oct 29, 2014 at 21:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oops. I see that at the actual question, I did assert that the question was ready for re-opening. Well, why not? But in any event, right here, right now, I'm just asking for undeletion. $\endgroup$ Oct 29, 2014 at 22:19
  • $\begingroup$ Current status: closed, with 3 votes to re-open, and one vote to re-delete. $\endgroup$ Oct 30, 2014 at 4:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree that this question should be reopened. I believe that PSQs are only an issue for the short time before the theoretical homework is due in: after a couple of weeks they are fair game for improvement and reopening. This has been approved, so why not reopen? $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Dec 2, 2014 at 10:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can't undelete due to a recent moderator having cast a vote before he became one. $\endgroup$
    – Git Gud
    Dec 27, 2014 at 0:16
0
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Closed form for sine graphic rotated by 45 degrees?

The rules say "when posting a new question, express why answers to the other questions do not satisfy you".

I asked for a closed form of an expression, and said why the answers to the other question do not satisfy me. Why it still has been closed?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Pardon me, but doesn't Jack D'Aurizio's comment answer your question? Depending on what you qualify as "closed form" the answer is either that series or possibly that no closed form answer exists. $\endgroup$ Dec 23, 2014 at 11:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Jyrki Lahtonen series is not closed form, ever. An answer that no closed form is possible would be good. $\endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Dec 23, 2014 at 11:57
0
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question deserves to be reopened since the OP did in fact show effort/context in the comments below this question (which were apparently overlooked).

$\endgroup$
3
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ They were overlooked because they are not in the question itself. Editing the question to include them takes a few seconds, and is much more productive than what you're doing here. $\endgroup$ Dec 24, 2014 at 8:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @NajibIdrissi A more sensible argument is that your time is better spent doing that, since you apparently deem it more worthwhile than do I. No doubt that would be time better spent than fruitless arguments about which effort is more "productive" (which this thread is not intended for - see my comments when I created it years ago). $\endgroup$ Dec 24, 2014 at 14:48
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I didn't say "better spent", I said "more productive". I'm just giving you the reason why the OP's effort was overlooked, you can take my advice as you please. What do you want, more questions reopened, or asserting your position here on meta? $\endgroup$ Dec 24, 2014 at 15:29
0
votes
$\begingroup$

Meta is probably not the best place for Learning roadmap request: compiling a “Mathematics Stack Exchange Undergraduate Bibliography”. It seems like it was migrated from main and subsequently put on hold because of the format of the answer that OP provided (at least that's what all of the complaints in the comments were about). That answer has now been deleted. I vote -- without actually being able to vote -- for moving it back to main and un-"on hold"-ing it.

I'll admit that my suggestion is nearly entirely based on the fact that I think I gave a pretty good answer and I'd like to see it stick around. :)

$\endgroup$
0
votes
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I request that the following question,

be reopened. It is currently marked as a duplicate to

However, they are distinct questions. The open question is asking for explanations about the concept in general, whereas the closed question is asking for specific algorithms for computing the combinations.

$\endgroup$
0
1
4 5
6
7 8

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