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. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Oct 24 '12 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 Oct 24 '12 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. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Oct 24 '12 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 Oct 24 '12 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 Nov 9 '12 at 12:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf, I opted for cursing the darkness rather than lighting a candle. Anyway, the question has been reopened. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Nov 9 '12 at 21:54
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry: Darkness is just the light's way of proving the empty set exists. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 9 '12 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 Nov 30 '12 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. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Dec 1 '12 at 1:44
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Belgi: This is why I prefer to browse Meta with answers sorted by activity. $\endgroup$ – user856 Jan 5 '13 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 Jan 5 '13 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 Jan 5 '13 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 Jul 13 '14 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 Oct 17 '14 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 Oct 17 '14 at 14:06

213 Answers 213

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

[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).

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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). $\endgroup$ – Douglas S. Stones Oct 31 '12 at 10:21
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Eric Naslund Nov 15 '12 at 15:39
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I've re-opened. Since the original close vote was unilateral by a mod, I think it is okay to re-open unilaterally too. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Nov 30 '12 at 9:48
1
vote
$\begingroup$

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

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

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

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ amWhy, this thread is meant for less-controversial posts. I believe that after over 30 comments it's time to start a meta thread on that particular thread instead of arguing here. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 27 '13 at 14:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf would it be better if I just omit the second paragraph? I'm just making a legitimate request to re-open a question, on the meta page designed for such requests. I will omit the second paragraph, though. $\endgroup$ – amWhy Jan 27 '13 at 14:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ amWhy, this is a thread designed for reopen requests which are unlikely to generate a debate. Whether we like that or not after enough comments on the main question maybe it's time to post a separate thread and just move all the comments there instead. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 27 '13 at 14:28
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Mar 13 '13 at 13:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – Math Gems Mar 13 '13 at 15:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There's really nothing wrong with this question. I voted to reopen. $\endgroup$ – MJD Mar 13 '13 at 17:01
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ You do not count the authors first comment as at least a shred of evidence? $\endgroup$ – user1729 Mar 13 '13 at 17:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Shred of evidence: please i need this question answer urgently,the answer are given 7!,3120,4080,0............please help me out. $\endgroup$ – Did Mar 13 '13 at 19:24
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Mar 14 '13 at 0:18
  • $\begingroup$ Now up to 4/5 to reopen, and 2/3 to delete. A race to the finish! $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Mar 17 '13 at 23:58
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.)

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

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

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

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @downvoters: please review my question and explain why you are still against re-opening. $\endgroup$ – zero-divisor Jun 10 '13 at 7:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I wonder about a specific claim in Wildberger's note that I don't understand: on page 12 he writes "Think clearly about the subject for a few days, and you will see that the computable real numbers are not countable, and are complete.". This doesn't make sense to me, at least with the standard definitions of "computable", "countable", and "complete". I would be interested to know what he has in mind. $\endgroup$ – Stephen Jun 12 '13 at 0:11
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Can the down-voter please explain why they believe the post should not be re-opened? $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jun 18 '13 at 10:14
  • $\begingroup$ 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? $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jun 18 '13 at 11:28
  • $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jun 18 '13 at 11:36
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Jack Schmidt Jun 18 '13 at 14:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jun 18 '13 at 15:01
  • $\begingroup$ Oh cool, I thought the chain went the other way. Voting to reopen then :-) $\endgroup$ – Jack Schmidt Jun 18 '13 at 15:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (reopened now, woo) $\endgroup$ – Jack Schmidt Jun 18 '13 at 15:05
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question has been closed as a duplicate of this one. While two of the five parts are the same and the other three are similar, it is not, in fact, a duplicate (except, perhaps, in the vaguest sense that they are asking the same kinds of questions). I request that it be reopened.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Cameron, had this question been even remotely well-written, and show any hint of effort I'd be glad to vote for reopening. Two of the five statements are exact copies, two more differ by what I can't tell whether or not is an actual difference or very sloppy typing; and the fifth one is most definitely a duplicate of some other question on the site. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jul 2 '13 at 11:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf: Fair enough. I'm not opposed to the question being closed in principle. I'd merely like the close reason to be an accurate representation of the situation. $\endgroup$ – Cameron Buie Jul 2 '13 at 12:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Cameron, since I lost my closure privileges on that question and it's really not a good question, what would you suggest that should happen when the next person casts a reopen vote? Should the parts which are exact duplicate from the other thread be removed, then the question should be closed as a duplicate of some other question? Should the question be closed as unclear/ambiguous/effortless post? I'm all ears. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jul 2 '13 at 12:15
  • $\begingroup$ It isn't a good question, true. That's certainly reason not to upvote it, and arguably reason to downvote it. The closure rules did just get revamped, so maybe there's even reason to close it, but the reason given isn't quite right. I'm not quite sure what to do, though. I have put this forth as a question on meta here, if you'd like to give your input. $\endgroup$ – Cameron Buie Jul 2 '13 at 12:43
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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).

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] This question should be re-opened because, the words of the OP,

"I was sharing my knowledge not homework. I saw that you could answer your own questions Q&A style."

Which is allowed! Need I say more? (Other than, perhaps, can people please be more careful when they close a question?)

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ I do not agree. Here is my comment at that question: "This site is meant as a Q&A-site for questions, with which you stuck and for which you need other peoples help. It is not meant as a site where we create a repository of problems & answers out of some books or from your own compilations. (Why not creating such a site if it does not yet exist?)" math.stackexchange.com/questions/451381/… . There is also one more comment of mine against a subsequent argument. $\endgroup$ – Gottfried Helms Jul 26 '13 at 11:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GottfriedHelms You are disagreeing with a specific functionality of the site. If you disagree with it you should start a Meta question discussing it, rather than close a question which uses it. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jul 26 '13 at 11:03
  • $\begingroup$ I'm disagreeing with misusing a functionality of a site against its intention. As everybody knows about software implementation, often some functionality of a software cannot be avoided (or was not seen in the begnning) which allows to counter the intention of the software. (For instance, the functionality also allows spam, but this is not intended). As I told in the comment at the question, I'll do not continue that discussion on this level of disagreement with you (it's a fundamental disagreement over the intention of our site) $\endgroup$ – Gottfried Helms Jul 26 '13 at 11:08
  • $\begingroup$ @GottfriedHelms I don't understand your point. The OP of this question was using this functionality in the way it was designed to be used! (And as I said in the question, I am not claiming to hold an opinion about the basic intention of this site (hence I cannot be disagreeing with you about it). Rather, I am pointing out an existing functionality. What I have an opinion about is that someone should not be criticised for using this functionality.) $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jul 26 '13 at 11:09
  • $\begingroup$ There is no agreement that this sort of thing is ok at MSE. Just because something is allowed on stackoverflow does not mean it is allowed on all the sites in the stackexchange network (that said, there is also not an agreement that it is not ok). $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Jul 26 '13 at 11:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TobiasKildetoft It has been discussed before. The most recent Meta question I could find is from a year ago, here. It seems that the opinion was "This is okay, just don't make the site into your personal blog/soapbox", but perhaps I have misinterpreted this (mostly my interpretation comes from Henning Makholm's post). $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jul 26 '13 at 13:08
  • $\begingroup$ But one thing mentioned in the answer by Henning is that an obvious requirement should be that the asker would feel this is something someone else might want to look up on the site. But for this question, there is already a question asking about differentiating $x^x$ which is completely analogous, so no need for one with $x^{1/x}$. $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Jul 26 '13 at 13:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @TobiasKildetoft Then the question should be closed as a duplicate. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jul 26 '13 at 13:23
  • $\begingroup$ (@TobiasKildetoft As an aside: Should we perhaps be discussing this feature on meta properly? I can see both sides of the argument and it is contentious, so perhaps it should have an annual airing?) $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jul 26 '13 at 13:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That might be a good idea, though I doubt any sort of consensus will be found. $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Jul 26 '13 at 13:37
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I agree. The OP is being a jerk in the comments, but the question itself is legit, just confused. $\endgroup$ – Ben Blum-Smith Jun 14 '13 at 17:39
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[Now deleted]

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

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

$\endgroup$
9
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ But the OP is not some new user. It's a well known persona. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 17 '13 at 10:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf: Looking at the OP's history, it appears to me that some of his other questions suffered the same fate: They were closed because he's seriously confused about some issues and has a somewhat haughty attitude and a tendency to find fault in mathematics at large rather than himself. I don't, however, see many in-depth attempts to clear up those confusions. Are you implying that the OP has shown bad faith, or at least behaviour that should be sanctioned? If so, where? $\endgroup$ – joriki Jan 17 '13 at 10:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ But those are the ones which were not deleted. Furthermore, the OP had several accounts (in part to mask his identity and in part to answer and spread "propaganda" (for the lack of a better term) against ZFC). Some of these accounts were removed and some merged, and so there are questions which are not owned by any user. Going even further the OP is a well-known internet persona from the days of USENET. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 17 '13 at 10:20
  • $\begingroup$ I will add that I have no problem with anyone asking a reasonably phrased question; and I am willing to give the latitude to new users which ask bad questions. I am not willing to accept bad questions from people which have a known history of asking bad questions for the sake of steering arguments. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 17 '13 at 10:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf: Thanks for the explanation. This doesn't seem like an optimal way to deal with this sort of problem to me; I'll think about that and perhaps post a separate meta question. $\endgroup$ – joriki Jan 17 '13 at 10:24
  • $\begingroup$ That would be good. There is already a meta thread about dealing with cranks, you may want to start there. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 17 '13 at 10:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I suggest you read Wolfgang's recent comment to my answer on his recent question (which were so-so, but reasonable). This should give you an idea about the agenda of Mr. Mueckenheim. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 17 '13 at 11:30
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ A known crank/troll deservedly gets very little sympathy. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jan 17 '13 at 11:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ joriki, you can see WM's recent activity and read some of his comments... after some discussion he begins to show his true agenda. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 17 '13 at 21:40
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

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

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

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Except that the OP does not ask for "a bit of history" but, apparently, for a proof. And this is definitely not suited to MSE format. (For a change I would be curious to see the reasons of the "re-openers".) $\endgroup$ – Did Aug 6 '13 at 14:36
  • $\begingroup$ No...the OP says "Could anyone advise on the proof?". Which could be interpreted as "can you prove it", but isn't exactly the same..... With respect to your "change", I personally believe that the onus should be on those closing questions to give a solid reason which doesn't always happen (for example this re-open request had an anonymous downvote and I had to start ask a meta question to find out why the question was closed.) $\endgroup$ – user1729 Aug 7 '13 at 10:47
  • $\begingroup$ Also, there is no harm in giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Sure, they are not going to get the whole solution and they didn't ask for some history, but there is no harm in giving them such an answer, and it would be a benefit to the site. The site is, after all, meant to be a big place to put knowledge, so let the repository grow! $\endgroup$ – user1729 Aug 7 '13 at 10:50
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Currently 4 votes to reopen. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Sep 26 '13 at 9:46
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED] Thank you.

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

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ 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.) $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Oct 1 '13 at 9:26
  • $\begingroup$ It seems clear to me: OP has $\mathbf x(t)$, and wants $\mathbf x'(t)$. $\endgroup$ – Lord_Farin Oct 1 '13 at 9:39
  • $\begingroup$ OK, you got my vote. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Oct 1 '13 at 12:17
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
vote
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
1
4
5
6 7 8

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