# 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

## 213 Answers

[REOPENED] This question has 3 votes to close as being an exact duplicate of this one, though both are completely different questions. Kindly pause and check if the two questions are really duplicate of each other, before voting to close them as duplicates.

[Re-opened] I voted to close How to create a function using the following? because it was very badly presented, and it got closed. OP has improved the question to the point where I think it can be answered, so I have voted to reopen.

[REOPENED] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/210161/probability-and-permutation-and-combination looks no worse than a lot of questions on the site, and leads to some interesting mathematics (as per the answer I posted before the question was closed). Please consider voting to reopen.

• It should be noted that although there are claims that it is from an exam, it is from $5$ months ago, so the exam claim is no longer relevant. Mar 13, 2013 at 13:32
• @user1729 There is a single claim: "It certainly appears to be asked on a cell phone for a multiple-choice exam". But I see not a shred of evidence to support that claim. It appears to be extreme speculation. Mar 13, 2013 at 15:23
• There's really nothing wrong with this question. I voted to reopen.
– MJD
Mar 13, 2013 at 17:01
• You do not count the authors first comment as at least a shred of evidence? Mar 13, 2013 at 17:13
• Shred of evidence: please i need this question answer urgently,the answer are given 7!,3120,4080,0............please help me out.
– Did
Mar 13, 2013 at 19:24
• Currently two votes to reopen ... and two votes to delete. Please, let's not argue about the strength of the evidence that it's an exam question --- as already noted, that's no longer relevant. Mar 14, 2013 at 0:18
• Now up to 4/5 to reopen, and 2/3 to delete. A race to the finish! Mar 17, 2013 at 23:58

[REOPENED] (Thanks, all.)

I would like to see Sum of squared/cubed combinations reopened. It asks for a closed-form solution to $$\sum{\binom nk}^3.$$

I originally nominated it for closure as a duplicate of Sum of cubes of binomial coefficients, which asks only for an asymptotic formula, because one of the answers there mentioned that there is provably no closed-form expression for this sum, and cited a reference. But the answer didn't give the proof, and the cited reference doesn't either (your princess is in another castle!) leaving one to wonder just what sorts of closed-form expressions have been ruled out.

I think our site would be improved by a more detailed discussion of this question, so I have nominated it for reopening.

[REOPENED] I think that What set theory axioms do I need to believe in uncountable ordinals? should be reopened. Granted, I was the one who initiated the closure, but as I remarked later:

After giving more thought, I'm not sure if that's a complete duplicate of the above links (and I'd withdraw my vote to close if that was possible). This question can be read as a broader question than just the axiom of choice. True, it was particularly interested in the axiom of choice, but there are other axioms in ZFC that may or may not be used in that proof. Hence my answer below.

[REOPENED] This question was requested to be closed because it was part of a then-current Brilliant challenge. It is no longer live, and seems like a reasonable question to re-open. But the community should decide on its appropriateness.

So here's your chance to undo what a moderator did! (or at least played a part in doing.)

[REOPENED] I would like to see this post re-opened, because I would like to answer it.

Currently it is closed as a duplicate. However, it isn't actually a duplicate. Rather, an answer to the linked question (this question) provides an answer to the question I want re-opened.

This means that there is nowhere to give a reply to the closed question, which is a flaw.

(Oh, and I should say that this is relevant to the here-and-now because this question appeared today which is a genuine duplicate of the question I want to reopen.)

The comments below clarify certain points.

• Can the down-voter please explain why they believe the post should not be re-opened? Jun 18, 2013 at 10:14
• If an answer to the linked question provides an answer to the closed question then I believe there is a way for a moderator to merge the questions. A flag should alert a moderator to consider doing so. And can't the new question also be closed as a duplicate of the linked question, and merged? Jun 18, 2013 at 11:28
• @GerryMyerson The answer to the still-open question answers the other two questions as a kind of aside. So merging the answers would not work. Jun 18, 2013 at 11:36
• One annoying feature of this approach is that you'll have to re-open the recently closed question in order to close it as a duplicate of the correct question. Jun 18, 2013 at 14:32
• @JackSchmidt I do not quite follow what you mean. There is a chain of "duplicate" arrows $3\rightarrow 2\rightarrow 1$ (so $a\rightarrow b$ means that $a$ has been closed as a duplicate of $b$). $3\rightarrow 2$ is definitely correct, but I am claiming that $2\rightarrow 1$ is incorrect. This is incorrect because an answer to $2$ or $3$ would be inappropriate for $1$. Reopening $2$, which is what I am proposing, would require no shuffling of arrows. Jun 18, 2013 at 15:01
• Oh cool, I thought the chain went the other way. Voting to reopen then :-) Jun 18, 2013 at 15:04
• (reopened now, woo) Jun 18, 2013 at 15:05

[REOPENED] I would like to see my question reopened, now that it has reformulated. As one commenter has pointed out, there actually is a valid point to be made, regarding the link I posted.

[Re-opened]

How to calculate the exponent of a given number.

This question has been put on hold because it's "not clear what you're asking", but I think it's entirely clear. It may not be expressed in mathematical jargon (it's obvious that the OP doesn't have the training required to do so), but you can still easily tell. The OP wants to know the inverse function of $x\to1.1^x$. This is possibly a programmer needing this for some project.

The only answer given is useless to the OP as it assumes they know what a logarithm is - they wouldn't be asking if they did - and merely states the obvious. All that's needed is a link to the Wikipedia article on logs and an explanation of how to use them.

[REOPENED] I would like to see this homework question re-opened. It is not merely a demand for a solution, as the OP is interacting with the comments. Therefore, I see no reason why this should remain closed. (As a side point - the OP was interacting with the comments before it was closed. So I feel it should never have been closed).

[REOPENED]

This question cosets of $\mathbb Z[i] (2+i)$ in $\mathbb Z[i]$ was closed as a duplicate of an earlier question Quotient rings of Gaussian integers

However, the former question is asking for help on a particular proof approach, while the answers to the latter question are a medley of various possible approaches, none of which directly match with the OP of the former question's approach.

When someone posts a question with a sensible approach to solving a question, I would prefer that we help them develop that approach to fruition, rather than sending them off just to read a bunch of different approaches. In this particular case, I already posted an answer with hints for the OP to complete their approach, and linked to the older question to indicate alternative approaches, so in this particular case it doesn't really matter. But as a matter of principle, I don't think this question counts as a duplicate, and so should not have been closed as such.

Prove $f=x^p-a$ either irreducible or has a root. (arbitrary characteristic) (without using the field norm) has been closed as a duplicate. But the answer at the earlier question uses field norms, and OP wants an answer not using field norms.

[Re-opened]

The question What is $e$? How does $e$ relate to its limit as $n \to \infty$? was closed again as "not a real question." I still contend that the question is perfectly clear, if naïve about the various contexts in which the symbol $\infty$ and specific infinities are used.

The OP is new, and has so far received a fairly poor reception (perhaps understandable, given some of his apparent attitudes). Still, this is not a reason to close his questions (downvote them, perhaps, on a case-by-case basis, but not close them).

I would like to see the question (re)reopened.

• I agree. The OP is being a jerk in the comments, but the question itself is legit, just confused. Jun 14, 2013 at 17:39

[Now Deleted]

OP has put some work into improving https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/436733/trigonometry-right-angled-triangles#comment936496_436733, so I nominate it for re-opening.

EDIT: now deleted. Can a deleted question even be re-opened?

• I think posting questions as a scanned file or photograph should be discouraged. It would be difficult to give the question not in this way, but an attempted solution should be typed out. Apart from anything else, you are expecting anyone who answers this to put in more effort than the OP has done! (Thus, I am not voting to re-open, although I have no qualms about others doing so.) Jul 7, 2013 at 14:09
• I agree that what OP has done is not optimal. I think OP deserves some credit for engaging with criticism. Jul 7, 2013 at 23:07
• Question currently has 4 votes to reopen --- and 2 votes to delete. Jul 11, 2013 at 9:32

[REOPENED]

This post (a commutative algebra question) was closed as unclear. At this point the post seems to be entirely clear (there was clarification in the comments, which was then edited into the body of the post).

The question asks for help to prove something that is false. This has been indicated in the comments, but it would be good if the post was reopened so that an actual counterexample with explanation could be posted as an answer.

[REOPENED]

This question was originally posted in a language other than English and so was closed for being "unclear". It has been translated, and so should now be re-opened.

[REOPENED]

I can’t for the life of me see what’s unclear about this question; André Nicolas, Andres Caicedo, and I have all addressed parts of it in the comments, and my comment would have been part of an answer had the question been open.

[REOPENED]

This question has been put on hold for being off-topic, with the following explanation: "Homework questions must seek to understand the concepts being taught, not just demand a solution." The OP has now followed up with three comments, showing in my opinion sufficient effort for the question to be reopened.

[REOPENED]

The OP of this question has responded to calls for extra information. They give the impression of being generally stuck -- understandable, due to being new to linear programming.

Edit: Shameless bump to rack up the last reopen vote.

• Currently 4 votes to reopen. Sep 26, 2013 at 9:46

[REOPENED] Thank you.

The OP of this question has responded to calls for context, and is plainly stuck. They would like a hint.

[REOPENED] Thanks.

OP of this question has given a nice bit of context that will allow an unambiguous interpretation of the question, and hence good answers.

• The question asks for "the" derivative, but of what and with respect to what are not specified. The question is still not clear to me. (Evidently, the question is clear enough to OP, who claims in the comments to have solved it.) Oct 1, 2013 at 9:26
• It seems clear to me: OP has $\mathbf x(t)$, and wants $\mathbf x'(t)$. Oct 1, 2013 at 9:39
• OK, you got my vote. Oct 1, 2013 at 12:17

[REOPENED] Thanks.

OP of this question is in need of an answer (possibly a hint) that follows up on their work, which they added in response to my comment.

[REOPENED]

This question was recently marked as a duplicate of this earlier question. In my opinion, this was a poor decision. True, the solution to the question posed in the first link is given in the second link, but its accompanied by no proof, not even an explanation; and furthermore, the second link explicitly instructs the reader to disregard the question that the asker in the first link is actually interested in, so no proof or explanation will ever come.

I think the [duplicate] marking on the first link should be removed.

[REOPENED]

This question, closed as unclear, is now, after the OP’s response to a question, completely clear. I’ve incorporated that response into the body of the question.

[REOPENED]

I would like to see this question reopened. It is asking for the definition of something, and the OP has responded to a request for more clarification of where the definition cropped up. Therefore I see no reason for this question to remain closed.

(Although, in general I find it extremely bad form to close a question asking "what is the definition of X?". When such questions are closed it is often because those voting to close have never come across the term before, which is not one of the valid close reasons.)

• In general I agree with not closing question about "What is X". But in this case, it's easily conceivable that multiple definitions could be given -- whence my close vote. With the reference added, it should be fine. Oct 24, 2013 at 10:03
• @Lord_Farin My point is that it is easily conceivable that multiple definitions could be given. But until someone comes along who actually knows something and says "multiple definitions could be given" then the question should not be closed. Oct 24, 2013 at 10:59

[REOPENED]

I would like to request that this post be re-opened. (It is at present well on its way.) It was originally closed for missing context/details, as the OP had not shown any effort or shared any thoughts on the problem. However, the OP has now added an attempt at the problem (which is very nearly correct), so the question should be re-opened.

Will you please to reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/511326/specific-advice-tips-to-streamline-studying-math by virtue of its upvotes and those on my Answer.

Will you please to appreciate the fact that most of the downvotes in its Meta thread (http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/11145/how-to-adapt-or-emend-specific-advice-tips-to-streamline-studying-math) occurred before my edit to my question, and observe Lord_Farin's gracious comment underneath his answer thereunder.

• Relevant: Being successful at mathematics is about good communication as well as good ideas. I feel that this question is interesting, but presented poorly. It is just rather convoluted and too wordy. But I have voted to re-open, because I don't think that that is a valid reason for a question to be kept closed. Oct 26, 2013 at 13:21
• @user1729: Thank you for your support. I've pruned the OP somewhat. Please feel free to edit if seasonable!
– user53259
Oct 26, 2013 at 14:02
• I don't see how your edits have changed the fact that the question is extremely broad. Oct 26, 2013 at 18:01
• @TobiasKildetoft It may be broad, but it is also of general interest. Broad questions are frowned upon, but often are looked less critically if they are of general interest. For example: math.stackexchange.com/questions/71874/… is incredibly broad, as are many of the top-voted soft-questions. Oct 28, 2013 at 19:11

[REOPENED] Thanks!

Please consider reopening Present a function with specific feature, about whether $f'(a)>0$ implies that $f$ is increasing.

People objected to the lack of context in the question, but my impression is that this is precisely the point of the question, that there is confusion about the concept itself, and some of the answers have indeed tried to address that.

I think the answers may be useful not just to the OP but others, and keeping the question open may be closer to the spirit of the site (This is indeed a generous reading of the situation, but I find it justified by the answers.)

(See also here for a similar discussion in meta at MO.)

[REOPENED] Thanks.

This question was closed as "unclear what you're asking". At the time of closing, it had gone through multiple edit rounds, and had 4 answers.

In other words, it was perfectly clear to some what was being asked. It shouldn't have been closed in the first place.

[NEVER MIND]

There's a revised Question about "proportion" of prime numbers to non-prime numbers that the OP wishes to have reopened.

I'm somewhat lukewarm about this, but after reviewing our stock of Q's on the Prime Number Theorem, it seems some technical but valid to ask what the PNT tells us about the ratio of primes to non-primes (below a threshold natural number $n$).

If I felt the (new) user were more mathematically adept, I guess I'd be more enthusiastic about reopening. However I suspect I'm projecting a meaning onto the request that is more sophisticated than what the OP is thinking.

• I disagree. The question shouldn't have been edited in the first place (it invalidates existing answers), and I have reverted. Perhaps it should be a new question. Oct 31, 2013 at 13:48
• It seems the OP is happy with a Commenter's link to another Question, similar to the revised one that has been reverted. Oct 31, 2013 at 13:55