# 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. Oct 24, 2012 at 17:11
• @Bill: Yes. This crossed my mind after posting this. I agree that it would be a good idea.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Oct 24, 2012 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. Oct 24, 2012 at 18:28
• @Bill: I saw no reason to wait with that idea. There was no actual discussion in this thread anyway.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Oct 24, 2012 at 18:34
• @Gerry: The solution would be to add a few words, I suppose. For example why it should be reopened.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Nov 9, 2012 at 12:16
• @Asaf, I opted for cursing the darkness rather than lighting a candle. Anyway, the question has been reopened. Nov 9, 2012 at 21:54
• @Gerry: Darkness is just the light's way of proving the empty set exists.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Nov 9, 2012 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 Mod
Nov 30, 2012 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. Dec 1, 2012 at 1:44
• @Belgi: This is why I prefer to browse Meta with answers sorted by activity.
– user856
Jan 5, 2013 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, 2013 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 Jan 5, 2013 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 Mod
Jul 13, 2014 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 Mod
Oct 17, 2014 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 Mod
Oct 17, 2014 at 14:06

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

• Well this question seems to be closed now. May 6, 2013 at 3:42

[REOPENED]

Before I begin, if you disagree with this by all means downvote, but can you also please comment to say why you disagree. I want to know what you think - make me change my mind!

I believe that this question has been closed because it is believe that any full would be "too long for this format". However, an expansion of Gerry's comment would be a nice, short answer, so there is a perfectly good answer which is not "too long for this format". (The question asks a recently-solved problem of Catalan which was open for over 100 years. So what is wrong with answering to give a bit of history?!)

• Except that the OP does not ask for "a bit of history" but, apparently, for a proof. And this is definitely not suited to MSE format. (For a change I would be curious to see the reasons of the "re-openers".)
– Did
Aug 6, 2013 at 14:36
• No...the OP says "Could anyone advise on the proof?". Which could be interpreted as "can you prove it", but isn't exactly the same..... With respect to your "change", I personally believe that the onus should be on those closing questions to give a solid reason which doesn't always happen (for example this re-open request had an anonymous downvote and I had to start ask a meta question to find out why the question was closed.) Aug 7, 2013 at 10:47
• Also, there is no harm in giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Sure, they are not going to get the whole solution and they didn't ask for some history, but there is no harm in giving them such an answer, and it would be a benefit to the site. The site is, after all, meant to be a big place to put knowledge, so let the repository grow! Aug 7, 2013 at 10:50

[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 Mod
Dec 1, 2013 at 18:17
• @Asaf: Many thanks! Dec 1, 2013 at 18:18
• Brian, no need for many. One would suffice. ;-)
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Dec 1, 2013 at 18:22
• @Asaf: It was an easy way to beat the character limit! (‘Thanks!’ came up one short.) Dec 1, 2013 at 18:22
• Thank you very much! (five letter beyond the limit) ;-)
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Dec 1, 2013 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. Dec 2, 2013 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. Dec 2, 2013 at 0:35

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? Feb 6, 2014 at 8:36
• Good, it's better now. Feb 7, 2014 at 10:10

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.

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 statement proposed for a proof is still absurd, for the exact reason explained in comments from the start. (And please note that nobody is vexed here.)
– Did
Apr 29, 2014 at 12:13
• @Did thanks. i revised my question again. rectified now?
– user53259
Apr 29, 2014 at 13:19
– user53259
Apr 29, 2014 at 20:26

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/695146/mean-value-theorem-for-proving-a-function-is-lipschitz-and-contractive-s-a-pp

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.

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.

• That question is deleted. Apr 29, 2014 at 13:34
• Dear Tucker, It seems that this question cannot be reopened, because of the manner in which it was deleted. I have posted a request to reopen your new question on the same topic. Regards, May 5, 2014 at 11:29
• @MattE thank you.
– user53259
May 14, 2014 at 10:08

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 question has since been deleted.
– user61527
May 20, 2014 at 22:11

[REOPENED]

Will you please to reopen $\binom{n}{k}\binom{n}{n - k}$ vs $\binom{n}{k}$ - Differences? Similarities?

I just edited my question to shorten it, but I don't know if this is the concern. Please advise on concerns or suggestions. I'd be grateful if one would please explain what may be "unclear".

I thought to add that user Will Orrick's comments and other comments have helped and enlightened me, so I'd be grateful for a reopening in order for the comments to become answers which I can accept.

Supplementary: The question now has 3 reopen votes.

[REOPENED]

Is this module noetherian?

Also, I would like to know why it was closed.

• Could the downvoter please comment and explain? Jul 1, 2014 at 13:48
• Did you not read the part where it said, "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." Does that not give you some idea as to why it was closed? Jul 1, 2014 at 13:50
• Not really. I am interested in the answer to this question, and do not really care what the OP thought about it (also, he gave some of his thoughts in the comments). Jul 1, 2014 at 13:52
• OK, you don't care what OP thought about it, but it appears that several other people did. You asked why it was closed; I think the quoted passage goes some way toward answering that question. Also, things might have gone better, had OP edited the question, rather than making people dig through the comments. Jul 1, 2014 at 13:56
• Is this something normal on this site? that questions are closed because the OP didn't tell us what he tried? because browsing around, I see a lot of counterexamples to this phenomena. Jul 1, 2014 at 13:57
• Ah, we are posting past each other on two different threads. Anyway, what gets closed and what stays open is largely a matter of chance, as to which members of the community happen to read which posts. Jul 1, 2014 at 14:01
• OK, so what now? should I repost this question on my own with my thoughts on it? because I want to know the answer (especially about the coherence part). Jul 1, 2014 at 14:02
• You have drawn the attention of the community to the question. Wait a while (say, a few days) to see whether you convince enough people to vote to reopen. If it doesn't happen, then, sure, repost (with links to the previous question). Jul 1, 2014 at 14:05
• I have one more question - does showing efforts from the OP as a prerequisite is something that was decided in this site? if so, where was this decided? Jul 1, 2014 at 14:11
• @theL: this list of search results may be useful. See also this question and its list of linked/related questions. Jul 1, 2014 at 14:15
• So this makes me wonder, would the number 2 question on mathoverflow ( mathoverflow.net/questions/21003/… ) be closed here? Jul 1, 2014 at 14:17
• Probably! But you do have to remember that the audiences are different. Jul 1, 2014 at 14:18
• Please note that, per design (cf. main question), this thread is not meant for extended discussions on such matters. The goal is to keep this thread tension-free, so that all will feel comfortable posting here. Please use chat or another question for extended discussions. Jul 1, 2014 at 16:43

[UNDELETED] [DELETED] [UNDELETED AGAIN] [LOCKED]

I propose undeleting the question Why is $\;n^2-\frac{n^2}{2} =\frac{n^2}{2}\;$?

Though the question itself was low level and not particularly exceptional, there were many highly upvoted answers (some creative, some canonical) which I believe are worth preserving.

• Lock it please (either way). Delete votes being castable more than once I fear this will never stop otherwise.
– quid Mod
Aug 5, 2014 at 17:13
• @Alexander As a card-carrying deletionist, I agree with quid: lock in the present (undeleted) state. The historical lock would be the right thing to use for such a question.
– user147263
Aug 5, 2014 at 18:16
• Okay, I locked the question. Any future meta discussion (including requests to unlock) should take place in these comments.
– Alexander Gruber Mod
Aug 21, 2014 at 17:39

I think that https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/921772/find-the-value-of-summation, currently on hold, should be reopened. Or un-held or whatever :-) I understand neither the flood of downvotes nor the "on-holding" since I personnally found the question interesting and original enough to spend quite some time on writing an answer to it. Also, it is no more off-topic than many others I have seen on this site : when asked (by me), the OP specifically confirmed that he was searching for a closed form to a fairly complex and intriguing summation.

Finally, I would like to add that I find it harsh to "on-hold" abruptly a question set by a newbie. I for one would be ready to help him improve his question (although I obviously did not find it lacking, and I satisfied myself that he knew what he was writing about).

For all of these reasons, I ask that the "on-hold" be reverted.

• I wonder whether this isn't a problem from an ongoing competition, Project Euler or codechef or something. It just has that smell to it. Sep 7, 2014 at 0:00
• The question is routine computer science homework. The floor function runs through $O(\sqrt{n})$ values; and as long as it stays constant, the usual way of summing $i^4$ applies. As for OP saying they look for closed form -- the OP does not know what s/he is talking about, having not digested their homework assignment.
– user147263
Sep 7, 2014 at 0:06
• The point of "on hold" is exactly to tell the asker to improve the question. If the asker does not act, only then will it be closed et cetera. Sep 7, 2014 at 5:42
• I stand corrected: it's not homework, but a Codechef contest problem. (Which has since been posted a couple times more).
– user147263
Sep 14, 2014 at 3:46

I would like to re-open this question, https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/950551/prove-that-x-y-z-is-divisible-by-xyz , which was closed as a duplicate.

The reason I am asking is that the question of which it was judged to be a duplicate has now been deleted.

If this cannot be done, I would like to know why, and how it needs to be changed in order to become an acceptable question. I don't know if this is the appropriate place to ask this second question, so please let me know if I should ask it elsewhere.

This follows an earlier question I asked here: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/16930/how-can-this-question-be-improved

I am the same person as user179549.

• If it is opened, it could be closed as a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/q/2158 Oct 3, 2014 at 23:09
• I would say that this question is more specific in that it is restricted to three "parts," in addition to being more clearly formulated. Being more specific, it may have simpler answers. Oct 4, 2014 at 3:09
• Did you check the answers to the question I linked? There are several that are quite simple and the simplest is tailored to the three part case. Oct 4, 2014 at 3:22
• Yes, from the perspective of a person proficient in math, a number of them are clearly equivalent to what would be good answers to the question I'm asking to be re-opened. However, for someone who isn't, it won't be immediately clear whether the short answers take advantage of some property of the numbers $9$, $2$, $3$ and $4$, and some of the longer answers might not be easy to interpret. Both André Nicolas and I had answers that I think would add something to what's in the question you linked to, and the differences are due to the question being different. Oct 4, 2014 at 3:44
• Have a look at this, for instance, as well: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/32311/… Oct 4, 2014 at 3:45
• Regarding your last comment, I have no problem with the question being undeleted. Regarding the question I had linked to, anyone who wants may post a clearer answer (I don't see the same concerns about those answers using 9=2+3+4 to illustrate general ideas, but you may post an answer that is more explicit and complete if desired). Oct 4, 2014 at 4:06
• This question is identical to another question (and it was done on purpose!). That other question was so bad that it got a score of -8, was closed and then deleted by the community. Why should this one be reopened? If you are able to ask the question in a way that won't get it deleted, my opinion is that you should just ask a new question at this point. Oct 4, 2014 at 6:49
• Najib, it was clear that what some people thought made the question "bad" wasn't its mathematical content. So you can't call my question "identical" to the other question based on identical mathematical content, if what was significant about the other was a non-mathematical aspect of it. You said previously that you thought the initial question was bad because it was a homework question. The context of mine is not homework; it is providing an answer to a question I think is interesting, as MSE explicitly invites readers to do here: math.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer Oct 4, 2014 at 14:13

[RE-OPENED]

This question was closed within five minutes of its posting. If it had remained open I would have posted an answer. Nobody will say that I am not good at answering questions here.

Should all questions that have erroneous presuppositions be closed? Obviously not.

[REOPENED] I would like to see What is (the definition of) mathematics? reopened. It has 4 reopen votes now. It needs only one more. There was an enormous amount of debate about the question's merit, but I believe it was asked in earnest, it has been asked before, it will be asked again, so I think having answers is the right thing to do, and in the future, the post can be linked to other such questions, as they arise, for duplication purposes.

This is a 'request to reopen' post, not a "debate" post.

Please, if there are strong feelings about this, or for any debate as to how or whether such a question can be answered, let's move the debate to a separate thread to debate whether mathematics can be defined, or its scope delineated in any way so as to serve as a guide for what is appropriate to post at MATHEMATICS.SE.

• amWhy, this thread is meant for less-controversial posts. I believe that after over 30 comments it's time to start a meta thread on that particular thread instead of arguing here.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Jan 27, 2013 at 14:24
• @Asaf would it be better if I just omit the second paragraph? I'm just making a legitimate request to re-open a question, on the meta page designed for such requests. I will omit the second paragraph, though. Jan 27, 2013 at 14:26
• amWhy, this is a thread designed for reopen requests which are unlikely to generate a debate. Whether we like that or not after enough comments on the main question maybe it's time to post a separate thread and just move all the comments there instead.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Jan 27, 2013 at 14:28

My question Are real numbers "a joke"? was closed as a duplicate of Infinite sets don't exist!?. I'm voting to re-open my question because I think that even if we accept the existence of infinite sets, Wildberger's opinion on the construction of the real numbers are legitimate.

EDIT: I've clarified my question now. I think it neither a duplicate nor "unconstructive" anymore now. Please re-open.

• @downvoters: please review my question and explain why you are still against re-opening. Jun 10, 2013 at 7:12
• I wonder about a specific claim in Wildberger's note that I don't understand: on page 12 he writes "Think clearly about the subject for a few days, and you will see that the computable real numbers are not countable, and are complete.". This doesn't make sense to me, at least with the standard definitions of "computable", "countable", and "complete". I would be interested to know what he has in mind. Jun 12, 2013 at 0:11

[Now deleted]

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/280561 was just closed with the reason "It's difficult to tell what is being asked here." That's true, it was rather difficult to tell what was being asked there, but I'd just figured it out based on the OP's comments and was in the process of writing an answer that I believe would have cleared things up, when the question was closed.

The question had only been around for $3$ hours, and there was an ongoing exchange of comments attempting to clarify it, with the last comment only half an hour old; I think in a case like this when it's clear that the OP is grappling with the language and trying to make herself or himself understood, questions shouldn't be closed this rapidly for being unintelligible.

• But the OP is not some new user. It's a well known persona.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Jan 17, 2013 at 10:05
• @Asaf: Looking at the OP's history, it appears to me that some of his other questions suffered the same fate: They were closed because he's seriously confused about some issues and has a somewhat haughty attitude and a tendency to find fault in mathematics at large rather than himself. I don't, however, see many in-depth attempts to clear up those confusions. Are you implying that the OP has shown bad faith, or at least behaviour that should be sanctioned? If so, where? Jan 17, 2013 at 10:13
• But those are the ones which were not deleted. Furthermore, the OP had several accounts (in part to mask his identity and in part to answer and spread "propaganda" (for the lack of a better term) against ZFC). Some of these accounts were removed and some merged, and so there are questions which are not owned by any user. Going even further the OP is a well-known internet persona from the days of USENET.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Jan 17, 2013 at 10:20
• I will add that I have no problem with anyone asking a reasonably phrased question; and I am willing to give the latitude to new users which ask bad questions. I am not willing to accept bad questions from people which have a known history of asking bad questions for the sake of steering arguments.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Jan 17, 2013 at 10:23
• @Asaf: Thanks for the explanation. This doesn't seem like an optimal way to deal with this sort of problem to me; I'll think about that and perhaps post a separate meta question. Jan 17, 2013 at 10:24
• That would be good. There is already a meta thread about dealing with cranks, you may want to start there.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Jan 17, 2013 at 10:25
• I suggest you read Wolfgang's recent comment to my answer on his recent question (which were so-so, but reasonable). This should give you an idea about the agenda of Mr. Mueckenheim.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Jan 17, 2013 at 11:30
• A known crank/troll deservedly gets very little sympathy. Jan 17, 2013 at 11:39
• joriki, you can see WM's recent activity and read some of his comments... after some discussion he begins to show his true agenda.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Jan 17, 2013 at 21:40

[REOPENED] then [RECLOSED]. Current status: [DELETED]

I believe that this question should be re-opened. It was closed as being "unclear what your asking", but this has now been rectified.

• The question is still a problem statement only, with no context, so even if it has been clarified it is still out of line with our expectations for questions. It seems bureaucratic to me to vote to reopen a question that still has a clear rationale for closing, when only one of several valid reasons for closing has been addressed. Mar 11, 2014 at 18:54
• @Carl Correction: it is "out of line with some users expectations". I see you cast the first vote to reclose it. Not very nice considering the above request. Mar 17, 2014 at 3:50
• @CarlMummert I think this is a bit petty. As questions go it isn't your usual off-the-shelf and out-of-the-book calculus question. The group theory tag is relatively responsible, and for a question like this it is unlikely that a full solution as opposed to a hint would be posted. Mar 17, 2014 at 9:18
• @user1729: I am not sure that the current version of the question, after your edit, is what the original asker was asking math.stackexchange.com/posts/707140/revisions . For example, all mention of Ito's theorem is gone. I believe it should be up to the asker to clarify what they want to know, rather than for other users to interpret what we think the asker wants to know. The asker has not edited the question since it was put on hold. Mar 17, 2014 at 11:37
• @Bill Dubuque: I posted that comment long before the question was re-opened; there was no response here until after the question was reopened and re-closed (including when the post here was edited). We all have to work within the framework of the site and the willingness of others to discuss things. Mar 17, 2014 at 11:39
• @CarlMummert I hadn't noticed the omission of Ito's theorem from the edit - on the one hand it is perhaps not the question the OP had in mind, but on the other no other possible question either makes sense or has an answer...Most likely, Derek Holt's comment was sufficient and they won't return (why would they?). Mar 17, 2014 at 12:15
• @user1729: if, as you suggest, the question the OP had in mind does not make sense or have an answer, I think it should be up to them to clarify it. If you or I had wanted to ask our own question, after all, we could have done it ourselves. If the asker won't return (which does seem plausible here), they are not going to accept any new answers in any case. To me, the absence of the OP is the main reason to let the question stay closed. In this case, though, I do wish that someone had commented much earlier to the OP about the need to clarify the question and include context Mar 18, 2014 at 11:53
• @CarlMummert The first comment asked for clarification, 2 minutes after the question was posted... Mar 18, 2014 at 11:56
• @user1729: yes. I have no way to tell whether the OP deleted any comments. Assuming they did not, that request in the comments was never answered - which is a reason to wait to reopen the question. But I am saying I wish that, beyond asking for a definition, earlier comments had pointed out the other issues in the question. There was even a later comment "6 downvote, you are about to crucify him !!!" by another user, but nobody told the OP the likely reason for the downvotes was that the question itself needed to be improved, until I left one the following day, before the post was reopened. Mar 18, 2014 at 12:02
• My own motivation for voting to delete is that the person who asked the question - an unregistered account with 1 rep and no other activity - has been inactive since the question was asked. Perhaps they got what they wanted out of comments, as suggested above. If not, they can always become active again and ask in improved version of the question with some clarifications. Mar 24, 2014 at 12:15
• @user1729 Now it needs 2 more undelete votes. What a disgrace to the site that valid mathematical questions are being deleted. Mar 24, 2014 at 23:17
• I voted to undelete.
– MJD
May 7, 2014 at 15:36

Can someone please open https://math.stackexchange.com/q/787937/85100 ? I edited it just now. Please inform me on what's purported unclear?

• What does it mean, "I want to intuit this (fetch)." What does it mean, "Are there illustrations?" That is what is unclear to me (well, that, and why anyone would need any intuition for $a-b\equiv-b\pmod a$). May 11, 2014 at 5:22
• This question has since been auto-deleted.
– user61527
May 20, 2014 at 22:10

[REOPENED]

Will you please to reopen Find bases given that P is the change of coordinates matrix from this to this [Lay P244 Q4.7.19]

I just edited my question to shorten it, but I don't know if this is the concern. Please advise on concerns or suggestions. I'd be grateful if one would please explain what may be "unclear".

• As I said in my comment on the original question, you can't really to expect some heavenly insight from the clouds on every problem - at this level, the proof and the computations are virtually indistinguishable. I see that you have asked numerous questions asking for intuition about various objects - some people have left comments similar to mine on some of your previous questions. At some point, you'll just have to go through the steps and try to understand them; once you do this, the intuition follows naturally.
– user61527
May 29, 2014 at 3:36

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/539192/how-many-prime-numbers-exist-all-together-in-proportion-to-not-prime-numbers

This was closed as a duplicate of questions asking how many prime numbers exist.

But this question is different. It says "in proportion to". Is there some reasonable way to construe that other than as being about the following? $$\lim_{n\to\infty} (\text{proportion of numbers \le n that are prime})$$ I think there may be other reasonable ways to construe it, but simply asking about the number of primes is not one of them.

• Looking at the edit history, I see that it was originally posted as asking how many primes there are, and was correctly closed as a duplicate. Then OP edited it to ask for the proportion of primes to non-primes, making the answers that had been posted before it was closed irrelevant. Another poster rolled it back to the original question, but OP edited it back to the new question. Look, the proportion question has surely been asked and answered on m.se as well. Maybe a moderator should re-open it and then immediately reclose it as a duplicate of a relevant question. Jul 24, 2014 at 4:10
• @GerryMyerson : It is odd that you say the proportion question has surely been asked before, despite the fact that you didn't give us a link. So a question gets deleted, then the original poster edits it so that it's different, then it gets re-opened. That's how it's supposed to work, isn't it? Jul 24, 2014 at 4:49
• math.stackexchange.com/questions/82074/… and math.stackexchange.com/questions/28540/… and math.stackexchange.com/questions/804502/… I would have no objection to reopening, if I could be certain it would immediately be reclosed. Jul 24, 2014 at 5:29
• I answered the original form of the question, and in the comments to my answer the OP came up with the new question, which I essentially answered then and there. I have now re-edited my answer to answer both questions (although I believe the thread should have died there and then). I am unsure if anyone (apart from perhaps me and my reputation) would benefit from reopening this question. Therefore, I will not vote to reopen it (but nor do I oppose this). Jul 30, 2014 at 10:17
• The question has since been deleted by votes.
– user61527
Aug 1, 2014 at 0:20

I do not agree with the closure of this question. Here it is said to be a question more of Physics or Philosophy of Science but I think that my question precisely wants to know whether Physics (to be precise, Theoretical Physics) really is a rigorous subject or not from a mathematical point of view as has been already mentioned in the body of the question.

It has been mentioned that the question has nothing to do with Mathematics, but in my opinion it has to do something with the Mathematical Foundation of Physics and that's why naturally I think that it has to do with Mathematics itself.

Also my question asks about the logical justification of the inclusion of the "axioms" I have stated in my question.

Note:-Please note that this kind of question (see for example here) has previously been asked in this site.

• It seems a kind of partiality that your question is closed while other similar one's are open. Dec 28, 2014 at 9:56
• @user31782: ...and are upvoted.
– user170039
Jan 14, 2015 at 14:33
• IMO votes have the least value. What matters is that the post should not be closed and not be deleted. Jan 14, 2015 at 15:25

[REOPENED]

Username "Jihad" was closed for being opinion based. No answer is opinioned based. My answer and quids are based on definitions and the fact that Jihad can be a name (quid). The mods answer is based on research about the said users activity. The close reason doesnt coincide with the facts and answers. I request that users vote to reopen.

• Thanks for the votes to reopen! Dec 31, 2014 at 19:24

[DELETED]

How meaningful is $\infty=-\frac12$? was closed as a duplicate of $1+1+1+\cdots=−\frac12$. However, the latter merely asks for a prove of said identity, while the former is merely related to it by its implication and asking about its general validity.

Recently a user indicated that he has a good answer.

• Is is worth pointing out that the user who added the sentence "Recently a user indicated that he has a good answer" is the same users who posted the comment along the lines: Reopen this question so that I can answer it. Jan 15, 2015 at 8:19
• @BillDubuque And the purpose of bumping the old thread when the new thread also contains the same request is...? Jan 24, 2015 at 18:34
• @NajibIdrissi I didn't see it in the duplicate thread (it shouldn't be there). Nor should there be duplicate threads (the other already has its first page almost full again, so what wasthe point?). But reason does not seem to win on meta these days. Jan 24, 2015 at 18:37

I'd like to request that this post be reopened. It was closed unilaterally as off-topic by a (then-)moderator, and while I agree that it is arguably off-topic, I also feel that it would be better located at Physics.SE, rather than just stuck in the limbo of closed posts at Math.SE.

• Why on earth do you want that post reopened? It is not on-topic here, and we should certainly not migrate a post of such low quality to physics. Nov 27, 2013 at 10:00

[DELETED]

This question:

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1071821/why-these-arguments-for-frac-00-0-are-not-valid

Is much more substatinated and concrete than recently asked question https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1083303/what-problems-arise-in-mathematics-if-i-take-frac00-1-or-frac-infty

I think this news question is just an exact duplicate of https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1071821/why-these-arguments-for-frac-00-0-are-not-valid , but nobody downvotes it. Why?

I wonder why my question received 9 downvotes and was closed while the other question has no downvotes. In my question I explain what is not satisfactory in prevuous questions and answers.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/988417/an-earth-day-isnt-exactly-24-hours-is-it

The reason why the solar and siderial days differ is just geometry. Mathematicians can probably answer this better than anyone else can.

[Now deleted]

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/294123/taking-the-amc-12-this-week

I see no reason at all why "this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling or extended discussion" of any unhealthy kind (or at all).

• The case to close the question is practically open-and-shut if you go by the criteria in the FAQ, rather than by the summary text taken from the limited selection of options for close votes.
– user14972
Feb 4, 2013 at 4:40
• @Hurkyl, the FAQ lists some positive criteria that support this question, and some negative criteria that either do not apply, or would have to be interpreted overly broadly to make them apply.
– zyx
Feb 4, 2013 at 7:50

Will you please to reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/930809/53259?

My English is imperfect so I'm trying to educate myself on possible mathematical traps and snares in common English questions. Please advise on concerns or suggestions.

• I fail to see how that question fits the scope of the site. We probably allow too many questions only tangentially related to mathematics, but these are another level. I know you're trying to find a home for these sorts of questions (exhibit A, exhibit B), but they really don't fit here. Maybe try to find some sort of LSAT prep forum. Sep 18, 2014 at 15:59