# 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).

## locked by Jyrki LahtonenJan 26 '15 at 8:27

This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed. See the help center for guidance on writing a good question.

• 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

[REOPENED]

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'.

My questions are numbered in bold. What's purported unclear?

Sequel — Fev-6-2014 — I edited. The question has more original text now.

• Pretty much everything is unclear. What are all those boxes? What are all those circles? what are all those squiggly things beneath the circles? What's your, and what comes from the textbook? What is the textbook trying to do, and what are you trying to do, and what exactly are you asking us to do? – Gerry Myerson Feb 6 '14 at 8:36
• Good, it's better now. – Gerry Myerson Feb 7 '14 at 10:10

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.

• 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. – Gerry Myerson Mar 3 '14 at 6:40

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.

• 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." – user61527 Mar 16 '14 at 18:59
• @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. – Jacob Wakem Mar 16 '14 at 19:10

[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."

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/696131/85079. I revised the question. Language and content are clear now. Closers didn't comment on what they were vexed about so I tried to guess.

[REOPENED]

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

[REOPENED]

I revised the question. Language and content are clear now. I tried to guess what closers didn't understand because they didn't comment. Please write me if something needs to be bettered.

• The reason for closure was explicitly given. No need to "guess" what it was. You already requested the original post to be undeleted and open. – Andrés E. Caicedo May 3 '14 at 15:31

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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.

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

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

[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.)

[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".

[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).

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

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[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?

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).

[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.

[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.

[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.)

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

[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.

[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