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. $\endgroup$ Commented 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
    Commented 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. $\endgroup$ Commented 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
    Commented 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
    Commented 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. $\endgroup$ Commented 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
    Commented 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
    Commented 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. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 1, 2012 at 1:44
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Belgi: This is why I prefer to browse Meta with answers sorted by activity. $\endgroup$
    – user856
    Commented 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
    Commented 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
    Commented 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
    Commented 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
    Commented 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
    Commented Oct 17, 2014 at 14:06

213 Answers 213

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

[REOPENED]

natural representation was put on hold as unclear. The author has clarified the question.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The author of this question has added their thoughts on the problem as requested. It was originally closed with the "missing context" reason.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question was put on hold as unclear, since the term throdd and the abbreviation PBAC were not explained. I’ve added the definition of throdd from an earlier question by the same person and expanded the abbreviation, which I’ve encountered before. (It’s particular but arbitrarily chosen.)

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

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

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] Thanks, once again.

Variable weight according to distance.

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

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

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

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

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

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

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

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

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

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENEND]

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

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

I think the question should be reopened.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question was closed as missing context or other details.

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

Therefore, I think the question should be reopened.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

This question about radian measures was recently marked as a duplicate of this question about $\pi$ being the same for all circles. The former question asks 2 concrete questions in its body, and I feel that at most one of them is covered by the latter question. I think it would be better if the question about $\pi$ were mentioned in a comment, rather than designated a duplicate.

Note: I don't have 3000 rep, so when counting reopen votes, don't count mine.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I think the following question should be re-opened.

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

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

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

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ The question as posed is too broad, and lacks context. You have now gotten some useful comments on it, but for the future, you could have 1. explained why you are interested in it, 2. explained that you have been unable to find any information about what it contains, 3. explained that you were looking for very general information rather than all the theorems and proofs contained in the book. $\endgroup$
    – dfeuer
    Commented Jan 16, 2014 at 6:18
  • $\begingroup$ @dfeuer I was the one who provided the useful comments, not the OP. .. (Also, from the context, I believe that (3) was clear.) $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Jan 16, 2014 at 10:57
1
vote
$\begingroup$

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/644699/whats-mathbbz-2-times-z-4-mathbbz-3-times-z-8-isomorphic-to-frale

I removed the darkred color but can add it back. Please notify me which is better. My questions are marked with numbers (1.) to (3.). Hence any color problems should now be settled.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ The question has since been deleted automatically. $\endgroup$
    – user61527
    Commented Feb 5, 2014 at 23:00
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Please Reopen Aleph and omega - were these deliberately chosen to represent infinities because of the connection between God (the alpha and the omega) and infinity?

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

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ While possibly interesting, I fail to see how it is a question about mathematics. $\endgroup$
    – mrf
    Commented Jan 21, 2014 at 9:30
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

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

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

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

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Please reopen If every convergent subsequence converges to $a$, then so does the original bounded sequence (Abbott p 58 q2.5.4 and q2.5.3b)

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.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ Commented May 3, 2014 at 15:31
1
vote
$\begingroup$

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

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

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[Re-opened]

Please consider whether this question should be reopened.

I am not 100% sold on the question meeting our quality standards myself. But I disagree with the close reason, as IMHO the original version was already clear about what was being asked. The question asks about a specific detail of a planar motion. I took the liberty of adding a few animations hopefully making it clear to all what that motion looks like. The OP's notation is non-standard, but I explained that in a comment (just to make sure - IMO there is only one sensible interpretation). I am bit reluctant to edit the notation, as that might hurt OP's chances of understanding an eventual answer.

My interpretation is that the original close voter was taken aback by the odd notation, terse problem description, and the air of a HW problem. The others observed the same weaknesses, and then followed suit. If I misinterpreted the close-voters motives, then I apologize for my own trigger-happiness. All those weaknesses are undeniable, but I voted to reopen this, because IMO there is a well-defined answerable question in here. Checking out the OP's profile makes it probable that the OP is in self-study mode, so I am not worried about any cheating taking place here.

I do not intend to answer the question myself. Leaving that to the interested calculus-experts. After looking at the animations I would be very surprised, if my guess about the correct answer would not pop out :-)

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Even if the question is clear, it's completely lacking context and any sense of what the person asking it has tried. Unless that person edits the question, it may end up closed again (possibly with a different reason) if it is reopened. $\endgroup$ Commented May 5, 2014 at 10:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think it looks like an interesting question, but I had some difficulty understand it, because I did not recognize the notation. I saw from the comments that others were confused by the notation also. So I changed the notation and the voted to reopen. $\endgroup$
    – MJD
    Commented May 5, 2014 at 13:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Currently 4 votes to reopen.... $\endgroup$ Commented May 6, 2014 at 3:06
  • $\begingroup$ I am the OP in this particular case. (Don't know the phrase for which OP stands, but context that I have seen suggests that it stands for “the submittor of a question.”) Pp By popular demand, I have reworked my question. As to the question, What have you done?, my answer is, All that my puny education, both formal and self-attained, would enable me to do. I have tried to teach myself calculus with a bit of success, but perhaps not enough that I can go further on this self-posed problem. Ergo, my question. $\endgroup$ Commented May 10, 2014 at 6:52
  • $\begingroup$ OP = Original Poster (sometimes, Original Post). Indications of what you have done belong at the OP, not here. $\endgroup$ Commented May 11, 2014 at 5:24
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[Re-opened]

The question Portia casket logic problem was incorrectly (I believe) marked as a duplicate. I guess no one noticed my comment to this effect, or my answer, which contradicts the accepted answer to the other question and should make the difference between the questions clear.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I don't think that this question is actually a duplicate. The newer question begins with a function harmonic on the unit disk, while the linked question has a function harmonic on the whole space.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I am requesting that this question be reopened. It was originally a mess (question and answer all in one), but has since been cleaned up.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ The question now has $4$ votes to close, all based on "missing context or details." I'd guess from people who don't see the fact that it's self-answered. $\endgroup$
    – user61527
    Commented Jun 18, 2014 at 21:27
  • $\begingroup$ @user61527: does that make a difference when the question is drafted in a way that immediately suggests closure? I am not convinced that we want to encourage self-answered questions; I have several concerns about them. But certainly we can expect them to be exceptional both in the drafting of the question and the drafting of the answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 19, 2014 at 12:07
  • $\begingroup$ @CarlMummert I agree that questions like this should generally contain the answer in the question statement (or at a minimum clearly mark that they are self-answered), but I don't think that this is a reason for closure. $\endgroup$
    – user61527
    Commented Jun 19, 2014 at 18:19
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED; RECLOSED]

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

$\endgroup$
13
  • $\begingroup$ Needs 2 reopen votes. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 1:29
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque - It seems that the question got reopened and then closed again, because the OP doesn't provide attempts to solve the "problem". Do you have any idea why this question is controversial, but this one, which doesn't per se provide "work shown" or attempts to solve, is wildly popular? I visit this site only very sporadically, and I am rather unclear on the current standards being applied to questions. $\endgroup$
    – John M
    Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 13:51
  • $\begingroup$ No, I strongky disagree with such closures. This is one of many bad side-effects of the extremely poor design of the SE platform. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 13:58
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Bill Dubuque: I think the solution here is to avoid re-opening these questions before the OP edits them. Although I have not voted to close, I pointed out before the question was re-opened that it would still be a candidate for closure. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 14:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @John M: I speculate that the difference is some combination of: (1) the level of the question (2) the fact that one is on standard facts, while the other is open, and (3) different people see different questions. It would be ideal for Sawarnik's question ( math.stackexchange.com/q/791378/630 ) to include something else, perhaps an explanation of where the problem was encountered. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ @CarlMummert I disagree. Rather, I think the solution it to avoid closing them in the first place. Instead, users that are biased against any particular class of questions should lobby SE to give them better ways to filter questions. Forcing such bias globally onto the entire community is a recipe for failure. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 14:12
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Bill Dubuque: This issue has been discussed at length on meta, as you are well aware. For example, see meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/9201/… , which has 65 upvotes (+87/-19) at this moment. Moreover, there would not be a "lacking context" reason in the closure menu if community support for it was not patently clear. Therefore, nobody is "forcing such bias" onto the community. The community simply has a bias against such questions, for reasons of which I am certain you are already aware. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 14:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Carl As I said, the SE platform is extremely poorly designed. It makes no sense to expect "majority" opinions to be wise on topics (like teaching) where the majority (students) have little to no experience. And if you think that you should have the right to choose for others what questions they are allowed to value/answer then we have such widely disparate views on how such a general level math forum should function that there is little point in continuing. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 14:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Carl In any case, as I wrote when I created this thread, this is not supposed to be a place for such discussion. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 14:42
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Bill Dubuque: this thread was created by John M, not by you. I think that the thread for each question for which re-opening is requested is a reasonable place to discuss the merits of that question. What I would not find reasonable would be to claim that it is somehow surprising that the question here was closed - the question is an obvious candidate for closure in its present form. That ship has sailed. But there is an ongoing need to help users understand the community consensus on these matters (which, I want to emphasize, was shaped by teachers concerned with low quality questions!). $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Carl - Thanks very much! I think I get the gist of the issues involved. $\endgroup$
    – John M
    Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 14:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Bill - Thank very much! I think I now get the gist of the issues involved. $\endgroup$
    – John M
    Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 14:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Carl The "thread" refers to this entire thread, i.e. the reopen request thread (which was proposed and designed by me, even though Asaf morphed his question into it before I had a chance to discuss and post it - see the comments to the question). As the question says, this thread is not intended for extensive discussion. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 2, 2014 at 14:54
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

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

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

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

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

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

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

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

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

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

Please vote for undelete the following question: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/601765/dimension-and-multiplicity-of-modules-over-rings-not-generated-in-degree-one which I think can be of interest for the future users of M.SE.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Did you contact the author of the question (since they chose to delete it several months ago)? $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Commented Sep 1, 2014 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Did Actually I can't see who is the author of the question. (Only users rated >10k can see a deleted question/answer.) $\endgroup$
    – user26857
    Commented Sep 1, 2014 at 19:39
  • $\begingroup$ But you do see the question, right (since you want it to be reopened)? $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Commented Sep 1, 2014 at 19:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Did Of course not, but I've commented on this question some time ago and I remember that the question was interesting enough. $\endgroup$
    – user26857
    Commented Sep 1, 2014 at 19:44
  • $\begingroup$ There is no comment whatsoever on this question (which was deleted on April, 5). Not sure I am following what is going on here... $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Commented Sep 1, 2014 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Did The most probably I've deleted my comment after a while if there wasn't any feedback from the OP. $\endgroup$
    – user26857
    Commented Sep 1, 2014 at 19:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Did: Note that there is a deleted answer, by a deleted user, whose user number corresponds to this user's username. I am guessing this is someone who went away and came back for one reason or another. Which is how they know about this question. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Sep 1, 2014 at 20:46
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[UNDELETED, REOPENED]

I'd like to ask for How is greater than defined for real numbers? to be undeleted.

It is true that the phrasing is very poor, and the question itself has a very negative score. However I think that the answers, and the many comments below them, have a lot of information that is worth preserving.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ I think the question would need to be edited first, and the comments with refer to the orginal form deleted. They detract from the maths. So in principle I agree, but I won't vote to reopen yet. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Oct 16, 2014 at 12:28
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't ask for it to be reopened. :-) But if someone sees a reasonable way to edit, and flags the comments which need to be deleted, that would be a good idea. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Oct 16, 2014 at 12:31
  • $\begingroup$ I have deleted the silly stuff in the question, and flagged the relevant comments. Perhaps someone could add some context? But, well, I do not know if it is really necessary for definition questions... $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Oct 16, 2014 at 12:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Asaf, @user1729 I have added a few sentences which could be considered as adding context. (Per the recommendation to improve questions, which I want them to stay on the site.) Feel free to rollback, if you disagree with the changes. (Or, perhaps better option, feel free to improve questions further.) $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 16, 2014 at 13:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin I think your edit is above and beyond what I'd consider necessary. I've cast the third-and-final reopen vote. I would still like those comments to be removed though. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Oct 16, 2014 at 14:03
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729: You continuously confuse reopening and undeleting. But it's fine, I guess. :-P $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Oct 16, 2014 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf Words are not my thing. Although...I did spend much of my PhD studying words (in group theory)... $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Oct 16, 2014 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ (Just to be clear: I meant undelete, not reopen. What I say is not always what I mean. Which make writing papers...interesting...) $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Oct 16, 2014 at 14:57
1
4
5
6 7 8

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