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

The purpose of this thread is to help focus the attention of the community on posts that may require exceptional handling. This includes requests for reopen and undeletion votes. A request should be posted as an answer below.

Please do not use this thread to engage in debates on contentious matters (e.g. reasons for closure). That should be done in a separate linked thread. The goal is to keep this meta thread free of tension, so that everyone feels comfortable posting here. Please be polite, and respect the many different viewpoints in our diverse community.

To inform readers of the current (and past) states of the targeted post, please append tags such [REOPENED,RECLOSED] or [UNDELETED] at the start of the answer.

Beware that "short" requests such as "request reopening of <link>" may be automatically converted to comments by the SE software, so you may need to write more (e.g. why you think that the question should be reopened or undeleted).

• For reopen requests that are run-of-the-mill (e.g. aren't meant to debate reasons for closure), do you think it would make sense to have a generic reopen-request thread, so that we don't end up with hundreds or thousands of questions on such. Then each request would simply be an answer in the reopen thread, and it being bumped would get the same exposure as a new question. Thoughts? Unless I hear any objections I will create such a thread. – Bill Dubuque Oct 24 '12 at 17:11
• @Bill: Yes. This crossed my mind after posting this. I agree that it would be a good idea. – Asaf Karagila Mod 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 Mod 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 Mod 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 Mod 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 Mod 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. – user856 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 Mod 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 Mod 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 Mod Oct 17 '14 at 14:06

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.

[REOPENED]

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

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

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

[REOPENED]

Is this module noetherian?

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

• Could the downvoter please comment and explain? – the L Jul 1 '14 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? – Gerry Myerson Jul 1 '14 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). – the L Jul 1 '14 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. – Gerry Myerson Jul 1 '14 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. – the L Jul 1 '14 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. – Gerry Myerson Jul 1 '14 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). – the L Jul 1 '14 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). – Gerry Myerson Jul 1 '14 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? – the L Jul 1 '14 at 14:11
• @theL: this list of search results may be useful. See also this question and its list of linked/related questions. – Willie Wong Jul 1 '14 at 14:15
• So this makes me wonder, would the number 2 question on mathoverflow ( mathoverflow.net/questions/21003/… ) be closed here? – the L Jul 1 '14 at 14:17
• Probably! But you do have to remember that the audiences are different. – user1729 Jul 1 '14 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. – Bill Dubuque Jul 1 '14 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 '14 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 '14 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 '14 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. – Gerry Myerson Sep 7 '14 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 '14 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. – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 7 '14 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 '14 at 3:46

[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?

• 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. – Gerry Myerson Oct 7 '14 at 11:54
• @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. – Najib Idrissi Oct 7 '14 at 12:00
• 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". – Gerry Myerson Oct 7 '14 at 12:03
• @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. – Najib Idrissi Oct 7 '14 at 12:05
• 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. – Gerry Myerson Oct 7 '14 at 12:13
• @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. – Najib Idrissi Oct 7 '14 at 12:18
• What do you want from me? I've already indicated that the voters should have exercised more patience. Let it go! – Gerry Myerson Oct 7 '14 at 12:23
• @Gerry I don't want anything, I'm just trying to explain my reasoning... Sorry if I have offended or annoyed you... – Najib Idrissi Oct 7 '14 at 12:24
• Anyway, it appears the question has been reopened. – Gerry Myerson Oct 7 '14 at 12:30

[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.

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.

• 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... – user1729 Oct 14 '14 at 8:15
• @user1729: Good point. :) – Prism Oct 14 '14 at 8:37
• 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... – user1729 Oct 14 '14 at 8:49

[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.

• 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. – Carl Mummert Oct 29 '14 at 14:56
• 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. – Gerry Myerson Oct 29 '14 at 21:56
• 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. – Gerry Myerson Oct 29 '14 at 22:19
• Current status: closed, with 3 votes to re-open, and one vote to re-delete. – Gerry Myerson Oct 30 '14 at 4:37
• 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? – user1729 Dec 2 '14 at 10:27
• Can't undelete due to a recent moderator having cast a vote before he became one. – Git Gud Dec 27 '14 at 0:16

[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?

• 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. – Jyrki Lahtonen Dec 23 '14 at 11:49
• @Jyrki Lahtonen series is not closed form, ever. An answer that no closed form is possible would be good. – Anixx Dec 23 '14 at 11:57

[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).

• 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. – Najib Idrissi Dec 24 '14 at 8:17
• @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). – Bill Dubuque Dec 24 '14 at 14:48
• 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? – Najib Idrissi Dec 24 '14 at 15:29

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. :)

[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.

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 '14 at 12:13
• @Did thanks. i revised my question again. rectified now? – NNOX Apps Apr 29 '14 at 13:19
• why the downvotes? – NNOX Apps Apr 29 '14 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. – Tobias Kildetoft Apr 29 '14 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, – Matt E May 5 '14 at 11:29
• @MattE thank you. – NNOX Apps May 14 '14 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 '14 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.

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. – Gerry Myerson Jul 24 '14 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? – Michael Hardy Jul 24 '14 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. – Gerry Myerson Jul 24 '14 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). – user1729 Jul 30 '14 at 10:17
• The question has since been deleted by votes. – user61527 Aug 1 '14 at 0:20

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 – Jonas Meyer Oct 3 '14 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. – user180040 Oct 4 '14 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. – Jonas Meyer Oct 4 '14 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. – user180040 Oct 4 '14 at 3:44
• Have a look at this, for instance, as well: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/32311/… – user180040 Oct 4 '14 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). – Jonas Meyer Oct 4 '14 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. – Najib Idrissi Oct 4 '14 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 – user180040 Oct 4 '14 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.

[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 '13 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 '13 at 7:50

[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 '14 at 3:36

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. – user103816 Dec 28 '14 at 9:56
• @user31782: ...and are upvoted. – user170039 Jan 14 '15 at 14:33
• IMO votes have the least value. What matters is that the post should not be closed and not be deleted. – user103816 Jan 14 '15 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! – dustin Dec 31 '14 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. – Martin Sleziak Jan 15 '15 at 8:19
• @BillDubuque And the purpose of bumping the old thread when the new thread also contains the same request is...? – Najib Idrissi Jan 24 '15 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. – Bill Dubuque Jan 24 '15 at 18:37

[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.

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. – user642796 Sep 18 '14 at 15:59