# 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 was closed. It seems to have been edited in the meantime, and seems reasonable to me at this point.

I gave a partial answer in a comment, but it would be more convenient for everyone if it could be reopened and answered properly (with hints, further explanation, whatever people find appropriate).

[REOPENED]

In my relatively expert opinion this question is perfectly clear. Yet it was put on hold as unclear what you are asking. The OP also has put a rather non-trivial amount of effort into understanding the question given that they say to have implemented the usual Viterbi decoding algorithm. Admittedly the OP has built a bit of a history in asking coding theoretical questions that actually are unclear and/or show very little effort. This question is not one of those. I will answer it in a comment (it has a very quick answer), and let anyone else take a first bite at answering. But keeping this on hold sends IMHO a wrong signal.

[REOPENED; thank you]

Ambiguity in the Natural Numbers asks what seems to me to be a very clear and specific question about whether two different axiomatizations of the natural numbers can contradict one another. This has been a serious research subject in the past, and it admits a positive answer, which Henning Makholm and I independently wrote.

It was closed as "unclear", but I disagree.

Please re-open https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/685061/undefinably-large-algebra . It has been substantially revised and should be sufficiently clear at this point. Also, note that you can address the question without addressing my semi-formalization of a hopeful answer. Suggestions for helping the question be re-opened can be put here: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/12825/working-towards-re-opening-undefinably-large-algebra?noredirect=1#comment50240_12825

My question is long but I put my questions in the gray shaded boxes. Questions are numbered too and spaced. Ergo it should not be 'unclear what you're asking.' None of the closers commented?

• Did you see where it said, "Beware that "short" requests such as "request reopening of <link>" may be automatically converted to comments by the SE software, so you will need to say more, such as why you think that the question should be reopened. "Please do not use this thread to engage in debates on contentious matters (e.g. reasons for closure)." Mar 1, 2014 at 23:21
• @GerryMyerson: thanks. did the website convert this to a comment? i didn't know. i wrote about the numbering too. is it enough now? i don't want to essay too much.
– user53259
Mar 2, 2014 at 6:10

My question is long but I put my questions in the gray shaded boxes. Questions are numbered too and spaced. Ergo it should not be 'unclear what you're asking.' None of the closers commented?

• Did you see where it said, "Beware that "short" requests such as "request reopening of <link>" may be automatically converted to comments by the SE software, so you will need to say more, such as why you think that the question should be reopened. "Please do not use this thread to engage in debates on contentious matters (e.g. reasons for closure)." Mar 1, 2014 at 23:20
• The question has since been automatically deleted by the Community user.
– user61527
Mar 16, 2014 at 19:01
• @T.Bongers And, worse, 10K users cannot vote to undelete since a Community bot deletion counts as moderation deletions. Bots should not be considered smarter than users regarding such. Mar 17, 2014 at 3:58
• @BillDubuque: Dear Bill, A revised version of the question has since been posted (by the same OP), but in a Catch-22-like situation, has been closed essentially for being a duplicate of this (now deleted) question. I have voted to reopen the new question; maybe you would like to as well, since the old question seems irretrievable? Regards, May 5, 2014 at 11:21
• @MattE Thanks for the notice. I too voted to reopen the newer version. I find it very disturbing that some users are not only voting to close these questions, but also to delete them (e.g. this newer one). These questions show genuine concern about understanding the essence of proofs. Yet questions that don't, but merely have random content injected in order to meet the "show effort" constraint remain opened and rewarded by the same users. What a sad state of affairs. May 5, 2014 at 14:11

[REOPENED]

Counting Shaded Squares was closed as "missing context or other details". It is a perfectly clear and straightforward question about combinatorics: how many ways are there to color exactly two squares in an $n×n$ array. Marko Riedel and I each had no trouble answering it.

(I voted to close, not as "missing context" but as a duplicate of how many unique patterns exist for a NxN grid . But on review I see that the two questions are different.)

[REOPENED. Thank you.]

Will you please to reopen Infer distance from a point to a line, from the distance from a point to a plane [Stewart P793 12.4.44]?

My question is tendered at the bottom of my question and there are no comments on why it is avowedly "unclear." I've made an ancillary edit that should only clarify the OP.

• I gave some spacing between the [REOPENED] part to the text, so it'll be clearer that it's been reopened.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Apr 21, 2014 at 22:59

The closers didn't comment on what 'missing context or other details' they were vexed about. I wrote 'thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it'?

• Indeed, the close reason seems strange. That one is "unclear what you are asking" just like the other two you have asked about here. Feb 26, 2014 at 13:11

[REOPENED]

Becoming Better at Math was closed on the grounds of being primarily opinion-based. It is community wiki with and tags. Though there are many possible answers (hence the CW), I do not find the question to be opinion based, as it is a call for guidance from experienced mathematics students, who in general do not disagree about most fundamental aspects of learning mathematics. (In other words, though opinion-based answers to this questions may exist, certainly not all answers are opinion-based.) This question could serve as a useful collection of practical advice specifically aimed at high school aged students preparing to major in math in college.

• Alexander, there are four votes at the moment. So I suppose that if you cast the fifth it won't be an abuse of the mod powers.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Apr 27, 2014 at 19:20
• Thanks, @Asaf. Even so, since I have an answer on that question, I would prefer to wait for the final vote from someone else.
– Alexander Gruber Mod
Apr 27, 2014 at 19:27

[REOPENED]

This question, Number of solutions of equation, asks a perfectly straightforward question of combinatorics. It has attracted three answers, including a really impressive one from Marko Riedel using multiset cycle indices.

[REOPENED]

My query Applications of Countable Infinite Sets and Power Sets was put on-hold as it was not clear. I have edited it and hope it is a little better now. I am new to this forum and so if it still not fine then I would be glad if anyone could suggest how to make it fit. Otherwise, I would request that it is kindly re-opened so that I may get some answers.

[REOPENED]

This question seems crystal-clear despite the fact that the poster's command of English is weak.

Ordered field with nested intervals axiom without Archimedean axiom

[REOPENED, RECLOSED, REOPENED]

I believe that this question should be reopened. It is asking why $i\times 0=0$, but has been closed as "unclear what you are asking". I do not see why this is unclear: it is very clear! Moreover, $i\times0=0$ is a theorem, but the OP thinks it is assumed - this is a chance to help someone! Why waste the chance by closing the question...?

• "i×0=0 is a theorem" Hmmmm... :-)
– Did
Jul 30, 2014 at 10:50
• @Did Well, it isn't an axiom! :-) Jul 30, 2014 at 10:53
• @user1729: So it's just a conjecture? :-)
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Aug 6, 2014 at 6:52

[REOPENED; RECLOSED (AS A DUPLICATE)]

I would like to reopen this question, so that it may be reclosed as an appropriate duplicate.

[Undeleted]

Please vote for undelete this question.

It asks for an important property of Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity, and the answer I've posted there could be useful for future readers.

Thanks.

• Voted to undelete. Wonder what prompted the OP to delete in the first place? Aug 9, 2014 at 17:06
• @JyrkiLahtonen Thanks. I think the OP has considered the question trivial (although he asked for the wrong inequality). Aug 9, 2014 at 17:11
• FYI, @user26857, it's undeleted now. Aug 9, 2014 at 17:16
• @DanielFischer Thank you all. Aug 9, 2014 at 17:17

[REOPENED]

Please reopen Algebraically compute $\lim_{x\to0}\frac{\sin x}{x}$ which was closed as a duplicate of How to prove that $\lim_{x\to0}\frac{\sin x}{x}=1$?. The latter explicitly asks for a geometric solution, while the former explicitly asks for a solution that uses as little geometry as possible. My own reopen vote has already expired, as have two others.

• It is not a duplicate, but it qualifies for "unclear what you are asking", if geometric reasoning and series are both unwelcome. Feb 2, 2014 at 18:56
• @Phira: the OP clarified that he wants to minimize the amount of geometry used, even if eliminating it entirely is not possible. The meta question is whether it is better to close such a question or to allow people to provide answers either explaining the impossibility or exploring the extent to which the use of geometry can be reduced or eliminated. My own view is that there are many different ways to define the sine function; in some definitions, no geometry is needed to prove the statement, even though that definition might have a geometric interpretation or inspiration. Feb 3, 2014 at 11:56

[REOPENED]

I believe that this question should be reopened. It was closed as "unclear", but it is clear (and further clarity can be found in the comments below the question).

• Would the downvoter care to comment? Are you saying it is unclear? Aug 7, 2014 at 14:55

[RE-OPENED]

I edited this question to make it clearer. OP has commented that my edit is acceptable. I would like to encourage re-opening of the question.

• Can you perhaps edit the title as well? I voted to close in its original form (although the edit history implies otherwise!). After a cursory glance, it looks much improved. However, the title just looks like a random collection of words! If you improve it so that I have an idea of what the post is about without having to read it all (it is rather long!) then I will vote to reopen. Sep 3, 2014 at 8:32
• @user, I will edit the title. Meanwhile, in reading the body, you can skip all the way down to where it says EDIT. Sep 3, 2014 at 9:03
• Gotcha! Isn't the required algorithm simply "division" though? I'll comment on the main question... Sep 3, 2014 at 9:09
• @user, I don't think it's just division. If you look at the example, where you want to make 10 from 3s and 2s, dividing 10 by 3 gives 3, but you can't use 3 3s since you don't have any 1s. You have to use 2 3s and 2 2s. Sep 3, 2014 at 9:12
• Do you want to make that a comment to the main question? Better to discuss the actual question there, and the reopening here. (Although I will admit that I haven't actually read the whole post, just your edit!) Sep 3, 2014 at 9:14

[REOPENED, RECLOSED]

I think that this question should be reopened so that it can be reclosed as "off-topic". It's clear what's being asked, but it's a PSQ with no input whatsoever. I'm asking because of this other question complaining that it was closed with the "unclear" reason.

• Perhaps it can be reclosed as duplicate.
– JRN
Sep 29, 2014 at 7:53
• How can both questions be off-topic? According to this page, math.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer , you can ask and answer your own question if you know the answer and would like to document the knowledge. Since it wasn't possible to answer the other question, which had been put on hold, I did the only thing possible to document the knowledge and invite other answers. Sep 29, 2014 at 8:38
• @user179549 I actually didn't realize that you had self-answered your question. Closing the other as a duplicate (or merging, since they are literally the same question) seems more appropriate then. Still, I don't think what you did was completely OK, but that's a different discussion that I'm not willing to have now. Sep 29, 2014 at 8:43
• I don't appreciate that you're telling me what I did wasn't okay, but at the same time, you don't want to say why and don't want to discuss it. Sep 29, 2014 at 8:49
• @user179549 Okay, let me explain then. The other question was in the process of being reopened; once it would have been reopened, you could have answered it. On the other hand, it was of abysmal quality: it was a PSQ with no input at all, never even mind the formatting problems. In fact, it was probably someone trying to make us do his homework. Just for that, it should have been closed as off-topic. If you really wanted to see this question have an answer, improving it (by adding motivation etc) was IMO the best course of action. Then it would have been reopened and would have stayed open. Sep 29, 2014 at 8:53
• How was I supposed to know it was in the process of being reopened? As far as I could tell when I posted my question, nothing had changed or would change. And I couldn't have edited Abdo's question to provide motivation either, since I didn't know his motivation. Most of your comments seem directed at the OP's perceived lack of effort rather than the real purpose of the site, which is to document knowledge. Sep 29, 2014 at 9:11
• @user179549 I do not mean to be rude, but you're an unregistered user who has been a member for less than a day. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the website before claiming you know its "real purpose". This argument we're having has been played out dozens of times on meta. This should be a good starting point (and this proposal is of most interest, I think). Sep 29, 2014 at 9:15
• Najib, I don't see anything there that applies to my asking and answering the question. Could you please clarify whether you're saying that if the question had been closed as you said it should have, it would have been inappropriate for me to ask and answer the question? Sep 29, 2014 at 9:38
• @user179549 Is it appropriate to ask again a question that was already asked and had an answer, regardless of whether it was closed? The answer is no. Either you can ask the new question in a way that makes it fit for the website (ie. with motivation etc), and then you can just edit the old question and it will be reopened, or you can't, in which case you shouldn't ask that question altogether. Sep 29, 2014 at 11:43
• The two posts have now been merged.
– JRN
Sep 29, 2014 at 13:34
• For reference: meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/16930/18398
– JRN
Oct 1, 2014 at 1:13

[UNDELETED]

How to switch to a Laurent series' next convergence ring?

I don't even know for sure how/why it was deleted, though I assume it's an automatism. Not having found any specific information, I ask a meta question

[UNDELETED]

This question was recently deleted by the Community user. It has 2 answers, both voted better than +5, both with mathematical content I think benefitting the site. Please consider voting to undelete.

[Undeleted]

This user posted few hours ago a question which I've answered, but he deleted this soon after posting my answer. Because I think that question can be helpful for other users, I'm asking for undelete it.

[REOPENED]

The question Which of the following abelian groups are cyclic groups? just got closed.

It is not quite clear to me why, since the OP gave some indication of their progress. Indeed, I first voted to close myself but took it back when noticing this. This was even moved from a comment to the body (by me) at 1 or 2 votes only.

Meanwhile the question got also a pretty good answer, which actually explains something while not solving the problem completely.

• I wonder if the reopen queue would have taken care of this one, assuming you voted to reopen. Dec 12, 2014 at 15:06
• Obviously, I did vote to reopen. However, I thought I'd give this explanation, since nothing on the post changed relative to the version that was closed (excepting the first one or two votes). Thus, there was no good reason to believe that without explanation the decision would change.
– quid Mod
Dec 12, 2014 at 15:13
• (It seems obvious, but doesn't always happen that those with 3K+ who express displeasure with a question's closing vote to reopen.) I would be optimistic; it wouldn't just be the same people reviewing. All 3 reopen votes that didn't come from you or me came through the reopen review queue. Maybe those three also saw this post, so I'm not sure of the significance of that. Dec 12, 2014 at 15:25
• It is likely true that I could have waited for a while, before posting here. However, in principle, I would also have been open to the option that somebody explains why they think it should still stay closed here; while I am quite versed in the mechanics of the site, I might not fully understand the nuances of some views around "PSQ." Furthermore, this question seemed like good showcase of certain type of unfolding of events; so I meant to record it. Indeed, I even thought about posting a question proper, but then decided for posting here as a middle ground.
– quid Mod
Dec 12, 2014 at 16:07

[UNDELETED, then DELETED again by Community, UNDELETED]

Please vote for undelete this question.

I've posted an answer and a mathematical comment there which I think can be useful to other users.

Moreover, this should be considered as a kind of warning to that user (who posted his first question on M.SE today) that this is not the way M.SE is working: posting a question, get an answer, then delete the question.

Thanks.

• The number of drive-by shooters is on the increase. I've seen too many lately, too. Such encounters always make me feel ill. One more reason to vote in favor of obligatory registration. Dec 1, 2014 at 17:00
• @JyrkiLahtonen In this case happened something I've never seen: the user deleted the question, but also deleted his account! Dec 1, 2014 at 17:40
• I'm afraid I've seen that before, too. Dec 1, 2014 at 17:41
• @JyrkiLahtonen In this case, registering the account was necessary to have the ability to delete the question. Unregistered users cannot delete. Dec 1, 2014 at 18:40
• @Jyrki: All the more reason to heed to Pete L. Clark's call to "Vote early, vote often" from way back.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Dec 2, 2014 at 7:06
• I support that spirit, @Asaf. But when the question looks like a copy/pasted HW problem I want to engage the asker first. The last time I did that it backfired. I gave a hint, then started typing in my welcoming speech, explaining what was problematic about the question. After the first such comment, the OP thanked for the comments, deleted the question and the account. I was like "WTF?". I'm sure we've all seen worse. Many of them won't post that thank you comment :-/ Dec 2, 2014 at 7:51

[(DELETED, UNDELETED)^2, DELETED]

The original question suffered from a lack of context. The poster supplied context before the question was closed (unfortunately, in the form of an answer, rather than as an edit), but the final vote(s) to close were cast anyway. Then people started voting down the (good) answers that had been posted, presumably to make it easier to delete the question, so the content of the answers is gone now, as well.

I'd like to see the question undeleted.

I'd also like to see people stop voting down good answers, but it seems that is asking for too much.

• Voted to reopen the current version. I didn't downvote those answers, but if they arrived when the question was very bad I understand the reason. That is the only way to try and pass the message. Dec 1, 2014 at 17:07
• If it is opened it can be linked to a couple of duplicates provided in the comments. Dec 1, 2014 at 17:12
• Oops! I had missed those. Thanks for pointing them out, @Jonas. Can close it as a dup instead :-/ Dec 1, 2014 at 18:10
• I've just cast the final vote for undeletion; it's better to leave duplicates undeleted (yet linked) for searching. Dec 24, 2014 at 4:56
• @anorton Not when the texts of the questions are identical. That's just duplication of content. Dec 24, 2014 at 8:13
• (Especially when the only existing answer is an extremely cryptic hint -- there is still much work to do after using that hint) Dec 24, 2014 at 8:22
• @Najib, there are four answers to that question, but three of them were subject to downvoting attacks and deleted. Would you be OK with keeping the question undeleted, if the three deleted answers were undeleted as well? Dec 24, 2014 at 20:13
• There are already two questions, one of them with the exact same text for the question (so the "google" argument doesn't hold). The other questions already mention Bolzano-Weierstrass in the question text. They both have upvoted, undeleted answers. Meanwhile this question only had one undeleted answer, heavily downvoted. If it's undeleted it should be closed as a dup anyway. What do you want, exactly? Or better, why do you want this question undeleted so bad? Dec 25, 2014 at 9:14
• What I want is for the question to be undeleted, reopened, closed as a duplicate, and its answers undeleted and merged into the other question, with the malicious downvotes reversed, and the malicious downvoters suspended. That's not asking much, is it? Dec 25, 2014 at 17:40
• The first part of your request seems reasonable; the reversion of the down-votes, however, not so much, and the request for suspension is definitely not reasonable.
– quid Mod
Dec 26, 2014 at 12:22
• "A moderator has deleted this post and it cannot be undeleted" Dec 26, 2014 at 15:05
• @Gerry Re: "malicious downvoters suspended" Hear, hear! I'd expand that to malicious deleters too. Dec 26, 2014 at 18:25
• @Martin, thanks. I suppose that what one moderator has deleted, another moderator can undelete? Dec 26, 2014 at 18:32
– Pedro Mod
Dec 27, 2014 at 12:02
• @Pedro It would help to be more informative, e.g. "Please see this meta thread which explains why I unilaterally deleted this question" vs. "please see this". Dec 27, 2014 at 16:39

[Undeleted]

Consider undeleting this question for the reason that the OP deleted out of frustration (check the comments) and it's a perfectly good question with the exception of the missing quantifiers, but this is something which the OP is lacking in knowledge and can easily be addressed.

• math.stackexchange.com/q/1081845
– Did
Dec 27, 2014 at 2:30
• There aren't even downvotes on the post, I don't know why he deleted it... Dec 27, 2014 at 9:02
• @Najib: I think there was one downvote when I looked earlier (after seeing this post). I don't know how it was possible for the downvote to go away. Dec 27, 2014 at 9:11
• @Jonas Um, in this case I guess maybe a serial downvoter? And indeed, some serial downvoting was reversed today. Dec 27, 2014 at 9:12
• @NajibIdrissi There was a down vote before. Dec 27, 2014 at 11:36
• Thank you everyone for the undeletion. Dec 27, 2014 at 11:38

[REOPENED] I would like to see

Properties of the number 50

reopens.

With $13$ upvotes it is clear that there are members of th comunity that find it to be interesting, and I recall such a question here (that asked for integrals and etc' with the value being someones age was not closed).

• Compare the two questions though: Answers to "integrals that evaluate to 59" are interesting maths puzzles. Answers to "what's interesting about 50" are trivia (to illustrate, the top-ranked answer at the moment is on Wikipedia). Oct 31, 2012 at 10:21
• I definitely think that such questions should be closed. By leaving it open, you are setting a standard which allows for any such question with $50$ replaced by any other number. It is too localized. Think of the extreme case. I would not want $200$ different questions on this site each regarding what is interesting about some different integer. There is no mathematical content there. Upvotes do not constitute a valid reason for reopening. One of the more upvoted threads on MO is about jokes, which is off topic despite being voted up. Nov 15, 2012 at 15:39

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

• However, it does bear more than a passing resemblance to Problem 9 of the ongoing competition at mit.edu/primes/materials/2013/entproUSA13.pdf Nov 26, 2012 at 1:25
• @Layla Patil: If you want it reopened you should react to others' comments. Nov 30, 2012 at 11:03

[REOPENED] I would like Covariant derivative on hypersurface in $\mathbb{R}^n$ reopened. It was closed as duplicate but I don't think the answer in the question it's supposedly a duplicate of answers all of the interesting questions the OP has raised.

• I've re-opened. Since the original close vote was unilateral by a mod, I think it is okay to re-open unilaterally too. Nov 30, 2012 at 9:48