32
$\begingroup$

Since I expect this may prove rather useful, I'm blatantly purloining Asaf's question from meta.math.se.

Please post general requests for reopen votes as answers below.

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). That should be done in a separate thread - which can be linked to from here.

If a question is reopened then please put [REOPENED] at the start of the request (answer).

Of course, each requested question may need some editing or other improvements before it is fit, and as indicated elsewhere, this is desirable, and I hope may be expedited through this thread.

(Improvements on the phrasing are welcome.)

$\endgroup$
8
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Not entirely necessary. There's a reopen queue now. A closed post can be put into the reopen queue by editing or voting to reopen. 3k+ users can vote to reopen (or alternatively vote against it). If this mechanism fails, then one can open a separate meta post about the question. I find that this is a more efficient process :) $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 27, 2013 at 21:10
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Manishearth: Not everyone has access to the queue history, so not everyone can tell when a thread has been "outlived its review" and it is time to come to meta. In the long run, I think it's better to have one post for "run of the mill reopen votes" rather than having more and more separated questions whose answers would consist mostly of "Done." $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jun 27, 2013 at 22:06
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila Yeah, I see your point -- but "outlived its review" can just mean "wait a day", regardless of its queue status. So, if a reopen vote or edit doesn't push it out of the queue in a day, then come to meta (and post on this post, or separately -- IMO separate meta posts lead to better discussion, but that's just me). But if you take a look at the MSE post: Most of the recent ones are either obvious nos (closed post) user whinging about closed post, or obvious yes's (Awesome edit improved post). $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 27, 2013 at 22:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ These can be dealt with fairly within the review queue itself; giving an explicit platform on meta for people to whinge or where people feel obliged to post obvious reopens is imo unnecessary. Again, I don't know much about MO or MSE, so I could be grossly wrong here :). Just giving an outsider's viewpoint. $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 27, 2013 at 22:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I agree with Manishearth: with the new "on-hold" -> edit -> add to re-open review queue mechanism, threads like this should be much less necessary. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong
    Commented Jun 28, 2013 at 9:21
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila Btw, this is why doing it separately is imo better, you get a lot more feedback and discussion. $\endgroup$
    – Manishearth
    Commented Jun 28, 2013 at 16:59
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I dont want to interfere here with anything but I disagree with Manishearth about the usefulness of this Request to Reopen List. At Math SE I have observed that it works very well and efficiently to get questions reopend without making much fuzz about it. At Physics SE, we controversely discuss each question that somebody thinks should get reopend at meta seperately at length with the effect that people just discuss instead of just doing it, and almost nothing gets reopend at the end. $\endgroup$
    – Dilaton
    Commented Jul 3, 2013 at 17:44
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Reopening questions the way people at Math SE do, has in my opinion the additional advantage that people who have less than 3000 rep and therefore not yeat access to the Reopen queue can take part in the reopen process by upvoting the answers of this post, which makes reopening of questions that deserve it more efficient. $\endgroup$
    – Dilaton
    Commented Jul 3, 2013 at 17:54

114 Answers 114

Reset to default
1
2 3 4
19
$\begingroup$

[RE-OPENED and later CLOSED again]

The question How the idea of adjoint matrix has been designed? isn't great, but isn't awful, and these two answers have been posted (and upvoted) on G+ rather than as answers, which is dumb. Let's reopen the question so that the answers can be added.

As an aside, the fact that Allen Knutson basically said "this is going to be closed, so I won't contribute my awesome answer here" says something terrible about how closing is treated by MO participants. The last MO board meeting included a discussion of how to address the problem of high-rep close-happy users making the site hostile towards grad students and advanced undergrads, who we really want to be comfortable posting questions and answers, but I don't think there was any publicly visible action on it :-/.

It also bums me out that Allen and François both have the ability to edit the question to improve it, but didn't, even though they were willing to put in the effort to post answers.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Why not move it to Mathematics? It seems like a better fit there. The user is completely new. Perhaps they'll even be better served by that site. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Oct 7, 2015 at 18:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ On the more general remarks, this would be an interesting discussion to be had. But perhaps this is not the place to enter it. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Oct 7, 2015 at 18:02
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I think we should perhaps post a committed amplification on the aside here at meta, which has been much on my mind recently. (I might could get the ball rolling on that, but would need a few days at least.) $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble Mod
    Commented Oct 7, 2015 at 18:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I know the more general remarks belong elsewhere, but I don't have the bandwidth to properly spearhead that discussion in the foreseeable future, so I let it leak out here. I guess math.SE would be fine, but I think it's just fine for MO too. $\endgroup$
    – Anton Geraschenko
    Commented Oct 7, 2015 at 18:14
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ My impression is that the question asked is actually wanting an answer that is at an advanced undergraduate or beginning undergraduate level. The answers of Knutson and Dorais (which I will review again) impress me as answering at a higher and more conceptual level which would be lost on the questioner and many readers. I don't mind the question being on MathOverflow (and I won't dispute the awesomeness of Allen's answer), but I think more is needed from the question, specifically what level of answer would be appreciated. Gerhard "Feels Professors Talking Over My Head" Paseman, 2015.10.07 $\endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    Commented Oct 7, 2015 at 18:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I gave the final vote to reopen. I don't have strong feelings on the question but I will defer to Anton whose vision gave us this site on its appropriateness. $\endgroup$
    – Benjamin Steinberg
    Commented Oct 7, 2015 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ It was later closed again. Perhaps it would make more sense to answer this on math.SE? $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented May 30, 2016 at 12:57
10
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Why was User retention rates on MathOverflow closed (on meta)? It's not a great question, I agree, but it's not exactly off-topic on meta to ask about user retention rates on the main site, and explanations for observed statistics.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I was not involved in the closing but I witnessed it. I suspect it was the passive nature of the original question, asking other people to do all the work, when the question-asker could have done the work himself. In the end, that's what happened. I think people would have been happier if the question was asked in more of a can-do tone. But presumably the question-asker did not know it's as easy as it is to do this kind of analysis. $\endgroup$
    – Ryan Budney
    Commented Sep 11, 2013 at 19:06
9
$\begingroup$

[RE-OPENED]

I believe the post Can you write $\mathbb R^2$ as a disjoint union of two totally disconnected sets? has been closed (or put "on hold") erroneously, as a duplicate of Can you explicitly write $\mathbb{R}^2$ as a disjoint union of two totally path disconnected sets?

Certainly the question is different; note that the consensus to the first question is that the answer is 'no', and the answer to the second is 'yes'. In some sense the closed question was answered by Gerald Edgar at the other thread, but I think that answer needs to be revisited as being not quite a complete answer, since Włodzimierz Holsztyński has given what seems to be a valid objection in a comment below that answer, and no response to that objection was given.

Rather than have Włodzimierz respond at the path-disconnected thread (giving yet another answer to what is after all a different question), it seems to me proper to reopen the closed thread and have him and/or others answer. The question seems to me to be legitimately of MO level, even though it might be "trivial" for an expert like Włodzimierz.

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The question A normal distribution inequality was originally phrased in a way that sounded like an exercise, and rapidly got downvoted and closed. I'm not a probabilist, bun in its current form it looks like it could be a genuine question worth re-opening.

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I find nothing wrong with Linear Algebra Text Book. Certainly MO.1 entertained plenty of questions about pedagogy without any controversy, and the selection of a linear algebra book with a view toward proof and standards of rigor is a perennial issue for teachers of undergraduate mathematics.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ But perhaps it should be community wiki? $\endgroup$
    – Joseph O'Rourke
    Commented Sep 10, 2013 at 23:59
  • $\begingroup$ @JosephO'Rourke Yes, good point! $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble
    Commented Sep 11, 2013 at 0:06
7
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Derek Holt, a highly respected researcher in group theory, wonders aloud why A subgroup intersects conjugacy class of every prime power order element was closed. I don't understand the closure or downvotes myself.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps it was closed because no context or motivation was provided. But since it turns out that the answer is a consequence of a difficult and interesting result (which I didn't know myself), this doesn't seem a valid reason for closing it. $\endgroup$
    – Derek Holt
    Commented Nov 30, 2013 at 18:19
6
$\begingroup$

[RE-OPENED]

I think that the question How does a mathematician choose on which problem to work? was too broad in its original formulation (beginning: "How does mathematical research work?") and so I have revised it in a way that I hope allows it, as a soft-question, to be (re)re-opened. It is certainly not intended as a finalized product; only a more focused question than the original version.

I also re-paste here the edit summary that I left (specifically for its final sentence):

I have substantially edited this question in response to its being re-closed: I removed some of the more general questions from the body, and tried to focus on the title question. If anyone feels that the change is too great, or otherwise inappropriate, I only ask that you revert the edit.

(If the edit is reverted, then [at least] I will not expend more energy on re-formulating the post.)

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

[UNDELETED]

This is an undelete request for an answer on meta: namely, quid's answer to my question Some proposals for modifications of the process of closing/reopening questions . The answer was accepted, but yet got deleted when quid left the site. This was not quid's intent, and I also checked that quid was fine with the answer being undeleted (see http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/37812/discussion-on-answer-by-sergei-akbarov-mathoverflow-user-jailed).

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ This is a reasonable request, and I think there should be one of these on meta to indicate the possibility of this type of undeletion. I think it is better for the site if future requests of this nature are made directly to the [email protected], and not on a public forum. (I am willing to expand on this through email if asked.) Gerhard "Seems More Respectful To Me" Paseman, 2016.04.16. $\endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    Commented Apr 16, 2016 at 19:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It seems pretty straightforward to me, and I don't see what is sensitive about the request that cannot be discussed publicly. $\endgroup$
    – Lucia
    Commented Apr 16, 2016 at 19:40
6
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The question Has Perelman's proof been accepted or are there still unresolved issues? has been closed as of this writing. At first glance, this question seems to be of the genre, "Is this paper about a famous problem correct?" which the MO community has long ago decided is off-topic unless specific technical issues are spelled out in the MO question. However, this question is slightly different. It is not directly asking about Perelman's paper; it is asking about a statement published by Shing-Tung Yau, raising doubts about whether Perelman's argument has been fully checked.

Complicating the matter is that Yau's comments are, by his own admission, phrased in a controversial ("subjective and argumentative"?) manner. That initially influenced me to agree with those who voted to close (although I myself did not vote to close). However, the MO question itself does not strike me as subjective and argumentative. The MO question seems more in line with questions such as Extent of “unscientific”, and of wrong, papers in research mathematics, which asks about whether published and "generally accepted" papers are really as rock-solid as the mathematics community would like to believe. In a comment, arsmath wrote:

I'm not trying to defend Yau, since the consensus is that he's wrong. I am trying to defend the principle that asking the question is legitimate. I don't see any way to interpret what happened here other than we as a community have decided to cover up any embarrassing fights. Which, to my mind, is more embarrassing than the fight itself.

I think that arsmath has a valid point. Note that an earlier comment by GH from MO, affirming the legitimacy of the MO question, has been upvoted 10 times as of this writing. Even before arsmath's comment, I had cast the third vote to reopen the question. Those reopen votes seem to have expired, and since the question isn't currently active, the only realistic path to reopening seems to be a post here on meta.

If the question were reopened, I would try to answer it by saying that the correctness of a paper, especially one containing a very complicated argument, is not a simple binary question, but lies on a continuum. It is not unreasonable to draw attention to a published argument and suggest that it should be scrutinized by more people, digested properly by the community, and generalized or adapted to other problems if possible. The trouble is that Yau has gone about this in an intentionally tactless manner, making Perelman's work seem more doubtful than it is, and courting controversy while disingenuously claiming to care only about the math. In my answer, which I would make community wiki, I would also reproduce the mathematical content of some of the comments, which cite recent work that builds on Perelman's ideas.

$\endgroup$
11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would be happy to vote to re-open if it were retitled to ask about the correctness of Yau's criticism and the long quote cut down to the bare essentials. A bunch of that looks like waffle or smokescreen (I mean, does Perelman wanting to wait for peer review to finish before explicitly claiming a proof somehow imply the proof might have errors? That's just good practice...) $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts Mod
    Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 4:24
  • $\begingroup$ My take on this is that the question on main needs to be either substantially rewritten (and retitled!) or, better, asked anew to make it clear and on-topic. From my viewpoint, it is really a question about history of math (and, by now, the entire affair is history). Just my 2 cents... $\endgroup$
    – Moishe Kohan
    Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 5:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DavidRoberts I was the one who typed in the full quote. What do you mean by cutting it down to the bare essentials? To properly evaluate what Yau says, one needs to see the polemical nature of his remarks (claiming to want to put the controversy behind him and then in the same breath making remarks that he admits are controversial, while claiming to care only about the math, etc.). If one cuts all that out then readers are left puzzled as to why other mathematicians are reacting so negatively to a call for more people to study Perelman's argument carefully. $\endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 6:15
  • $\begingroup$ @TimothyChow oh, ok, that makes sense. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts Mod
    Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 6:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MoisheKohan I have just attempted to rewrite the question. What do you think about it now? $\endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 6:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TimothyChow I think it's good, and I've voted to reopen. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts Mod
    Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 7:25
  • $\begingroup$ @TimothyChow: This is much better now. One thing which still bothers me about the question in the current form: Most of what Yau says is not even a doubt in the proof. It's a sequence of lamentations such as "As far as I'm aware, no one has taken some of the techniques Perelman introduced toward the end of his paper and successfully used them to solve any other significant problem. This suggests to me that other mathematicians don't yet have full command of this work and its methodologies either." A valid answer has to address such lamentations as well. $\endgroup$
    – Moishe Kohan
    Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 18:37
  • $\begingroup$ @TimothyChow Maybe a bette phrasing would be "To what extent are the doubts and lamentations (?) about the current state of understanding of Perelman's proof well-founded?" Lastly, the original poster of the question was last seen at MO a week ago, which is another indication (to me) that this was not a serious inquiry. Given this, I think, it's OK to edit the question at will. $\endgroup$
    – Moishe Kohan
    Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 18:37
  • $\begingroup$ @MoisheKohan I agree that what you're calling "lamentations" should be addressed in the answer, but I prefer that the question itself be phrased as neutrally as possible, and the word "lamentation" is something of a pre-judgment. (By the way, as an aside, it seems that since I already voted to reopen a little while ago, I can't vote to reopen again for another couple of weeks.) $\endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 18:57
  • $\begingroup$ @TimothyChow: Ok, I will vote to reopen. Thank you for your effort. $\endgroup$
    – Moishe Kohan
    Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 18:58
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I voted to delete the question, and here is why. There are several detailed published expositions of Perelman's work/program. The authors put their reputation on the line. Surely, this counts more than any MO answer could ever provide. Concerns with the above expositions should be first brought to the authors, or other experts. I gather this has not been tried because there is no specific concern. MO is not for idle speculations, imo. The question "Which other significant problems were solved via Ricci flow techniques of Perelman" is reasonable and no doubt would receive good answers. $\endgroup$
    – Igor Belegradek
    Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 23:51
6
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The question Center of a monoid ring asks two questions, one of which can be found in standard texts and the other which is essentially an open question but which appears to be a harmless generalization of the first and that I believe from the comments was mistaken to be much easier than it is.

@AlexM, perhaps following my suggestion, removed the more basic question and left the more interesting one.

I would like to give a partial answer to the remaining question that explains in part why it is not as easy as you might first think.

$\endgroup$
0
5
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

"Find a TSP tour passing through at least one node in each set of nodes" was initially unclear, but the author has now clarified it into a real question (and I corrected the English): Is there a PTAS (polynomial-time approximation scheme) for this problem?

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The question Lexicographic order on increasing $k$-tuples by a first-time poster was closed as "unclear what you're asking". I have rewritten it so that (I think) it is now clear. It is not a hard question, but I think it probably has a nice answer.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This question was heavily downvoted and closed: When a compact topological manifold with boundary is a ball? Color me ignorant, perhaps, but I wondered if it were as trivial as the downvotes and closure might suggest.

Although it is a question for the topological category, a very similar question but for the smooth category was upvoted and answered last year, and the answers suggested there was interesting mathematics: The boundary of a domain whose interior is diffeomorphic to the ball.

Update: OP added some context.

$\endgroup$
13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The downvotes and closure do not necessarily suggest it is trivial. Rather they might just suggest the question is terribly written and thus deemed unsuitable, irrespective of its precise mathematical content. Let me add that I do not have a personal opinion on the content of this particular question (I also did not vote on it), but I am of the opinion that there are minimal standards on the presentation that should be enforced. It might be a good idea though to explain this when closing. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Nov 11, 2015 at 19:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid We've both been here a long time. I said they might suggest that. No explanation is given, so we are left guessing what the problem actually is. I don't think the question is terribly written; do you think that? If we tweaked it to read, "Let $X$ be a compact topological manifold with boundary, and suppose its interior is homeomorphic to an (open) ball. Is $X$ a (closed) ball?", then is it still terribly written? I wouldn't really think so. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble Mod
    Commented Nov 11, 2015 at 20:00
  • $\begingroup$ Point taken on the "might." The rewrite you propose is still a very poorly presented question, as it lacks all context and motivation. By contrast the well-received question you reference gives some context. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Nov 11, 2015 at 20:07
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @quid There is ample precedent for short, snappy questions which don't include motivations/context, that have been well received. It is highly questionable whether questions that are short and snappy are ipso facto "poor". In any case, if this is the only objection, then I have to think that the reaction was likewise "poorly presented" (except perhaps for the possibility it does have a trivial answer I have overlooked). $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble Mod
    Commented Nov 11, 2015 at 21:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, unfortunately, that's true. Many a complicated debate could have been avoided would there be only consensus that the official guide, which asks for context, on how to ask a question is somewhat binding (and to be sure that guide was written by "us" not SE). Of course, a snappy question can "fly" and if it flies it might even fly higher than the same question with context. But, first, it is more fragile so to say. And also it does not alter the fact that it would still be a ultimately better question with some context even if it might get less upvotes. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Nov 11, 2015 at 22:22
  • $\begingroup$ @quid I added already a comment to the post suggesting adding some context. I can see the point of your last comment, but I think it would be hard getting community consensus on making it a rule. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble Mod
    Commented Nov 11, 2015 at 22:43
  • $\begingroup$ I saw that comment. Thanks for adding it. To reply also to your second remark from the earlier comment: there is no disagreement there. I said right away 'It might be a good idea though to explain this when closing.' Certainly I am not blind to the fact that a closure without comment and the most generic reason is not optimal. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Nov 11, 2015 at 22:48
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't agree at all the the presentation was particularly poor, and find it appalling that it got 5 downvotes and was closed within an hour. It could have been written better, sure, but I strongly agree with Todd's remark that the question is self-motivating. $\endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Commented Nov 12, 2015 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ @EricWofsey is the question better with or without the context? $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Nov 12, 2015 at 16:35
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @EricWofsey Agree with you very strongly. Again I would ask closers: if you are closing because you think the question is "not research level", then please please please take a moment to ask yourself whether you know enough about the subject to make that call. (If you don't, then leave it alone.) If the real reason for closure is that you think it's not well written, then please leave a note for the poor newcomer explaining how the post might be improved. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble Mod
    Commented Nov 12, 2015 at 16:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid: Obviously it is better with context, but that doesn't mean it was a bad question that needed to be put on hold, let alone put on hold with the swiftness and accompanying downvotes normally given only to calculus questions and their ilk. $\endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Commented Nov 12, 2015 at 16:40
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I was one of the people voting to close. I thought there were trivial counter-examples. I realize now that my trivial counter-examples are not counter-examples. My apologies to the OP. $\endgroup$
    – Hugh Thomas
    Commented Nov 12, 2015 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ @EricWofsey if what are in my opinion proper procedures would be followed this and related situations would go over much more smoothly. The users showing your type of reaction in such situations are in my firm opinion in the end not all that helpful either, but rather make a bad situation worse. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Nov 12, 2015 at 16:47
5
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The OP of this question Connected sum is well-defined for surfaces, proof? requests reconsideration to reopen. It was closed as a duplicate, but OP says that what is asked for was not answered at the other post; he/she wants a simple self-contained proof that doesn't invoke anything so powerful as the Annulus Theorem. OP believes that for the 2-dimensional case which is the focus here, there should be a simpler argument, and that's what is wanted. One of the comments below the question points out that with the classification of oriented surfaces in hand, well-definedness of connected sum is easy -- but insofar as the proof of the classification takes some build-up, I guess OP isn't satisfied with that either.

(I don't have a strong opinion here or a dog in the fight, but I did tell OP in response to a flag that I'd put it before the community at meta for consideration.)

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

An ideal candidate to get things started is this question, Preparing for set theory research. I am definitely not happy with the wording, but I understand it may be very useful for beginning graduate students, and so it probably deserves a shot.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I'd like to nominate this question. It originally got closed due to a typo, which has been fixed. It's certainly not "unclear what you are asking" any more (the original reason for closing), and it looks like a perfectly reasonable question to me.

I have a (rather quick) answer ready, and it's mildly frustrating not to be able to post it.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ The last reopen vote has been cast. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble Mod
    Commented Mar 24, 2015 at 0:45
4
$\begingroup$

The question A question on $p$-approximation property from 2014 has been automatically deleted owing to lack of upvotes. While I can't immediately tell if it is a good question, it seems a perfectly reasonable one, which is unlikely to attract bad or vague answers, and might eventually get a proper answer.

For those who have high enough rep to see the question, I suggest leaving your opinion in the comments.

[UNDELETED and REOPENED]

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I cast the last vote to undelete and also voted up the question so it doesn't get autodeleted again. Let me also link meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2232/… to again draw people's attention to this general issue. $\endgroup$
    – Lucia
    Commented Aug 30, 2015 at 15:23
4
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Parameterizing rotations of a cube

was asked and answered, but I don't see a reason for closing it.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think you're right, Gil, but I'll wait for another vote to reopen before applying moderator power. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble Mod
    Commented Dec 2, 2015 at 18:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I cast a vote to reopen mainly as I do not see the point of such "after the fact closure." We are not going to delete the post, are we? // @ToddTrimble there is only one vote missing now. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Dec 2, 2015 at 18:16
4
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I'd like to suggest reopening Covering systems. As I wrote in a comment,

Why is this closed? Covering systems are a recognized area of research in Number Theory. It's known that in an irredundant cover with a modulus divisible by a prime $p$ there are at least $p$ moduli divisible by $p$. This asks whether, if there is a modulus divisible by a power of a prime $p$, there are at least $p$ moduli divisible by that power of $p$. Seems like a reasonable research question to me.

[Also, I think I can answer it.]

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I've just cast a 5th vote to reopen. Let's see if anyone who voted to close leaves further comments $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Oct 29, 2016 at 21:55
4
$\begingroup$

[Undeleted; Reopened]

If normal with respect to prime base then normal for all bases was closed as not being research math. I nominated it for reopening, after leaving a comment establishing its research content. There were four votes to reopen; then, OP chose to delete the question.

So now I am asking for the question to be undeleted and, should that happen, for it to be reopened.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

I think people were pretty hasty in shutting down this question: Shape of axioms in abstract algebra. I could just barely squeeze in some highly relevant content and context in a comment before the thing was shut down. I request that this be reopened.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I had voted to migrate to math.SE, since I think the question is a fine, but a better match for them, but it seems that migration was not the actual result. Is it still possible to migrate a question that has been placed on hold? If not, I guess I'll vote to reopen, especially if Todd has something to say. $\endgroup$
    – Joel David Hamkins
    Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 21:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JoelDavidHamkins: moderators could still migrate it. If you would like this, just flag the question with a moderator attention flag giving this request as the reason for flagging. (This is to answer the technical question, I have no opinion on this question.) $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 21:25
  • $\begingroup$ I have suggested an edit which may place the question more properly in the realm of mathoverflow.stackexchange. It is still on the naive side, although one can find answers on the lines of finding mostly equational bases for theories which include or may be included by the definition theory. $\endgroup$
    – The Masked Avenger
    Commented Jul 24, 2013 at 22:33
3
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Boundary conditions for Klein-Gordon equation

The author has responded to comments and edited the question into a form that is much clearer, and in fact bringing it into the realm of active research. Just need 2 more re-open votes last I checked.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

The question Identify one group of linear transformations was closed as "unclear what you're asking". Afterwards it has been edited and clarified. I don't see what is still "unclear" in this question.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

[UNDELETED]

I propose that this question should be undeleted: Reduced ring with all non-prime ideals finitely generated

It was deleted by the OP despite having a substantial answer by Keith Kearnes. Keith has re-asked the question and re-posted his answer at Reduced ring with all non-prime ideals finitely generated

$\endgroup$
2
3
$\begingroup$

[UNDELETED] [REOPENED] [CLOSED]

I would suggest to undelete/reopen https://mathoverflow.net/q/328312, as a courtesy and sign of respect, and then hopefully one of our experts can answer it.

I know, I was one of those who cast a vote to delete, when I was still under the impression that this was posted under a false name. Somehow the software allows to retract close votes but not delete votes.

Edit GRP 2019.07.11 The question was deleted by community user on May 23. I think it should be undeleted as it makes an excellent example of how to not ask a question on MathOverflow. It can also be used to help design a format for others to follow in asking questions suitable for this forum. I also reference it in one of my posts on meta. End Edit

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I find some of the comments on that question extremely, extremely dispiriting. What happened to the MathOverflow I knew where people acted with some charity towards fellow researchers who maybe, just maybe, did not have the same undergraduate education or simply do not have the time to reinvent the wheel? $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Apr 17, 2019 at 20:34
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I should explain that I am more likely to downvote or vote-to-close a question which seems to be on topic X by a student in X who should be finding the answer to a question on X as part of their studies of X. Whereas a specialist in Y asking a question on X that people who study X can answer easily was surely one of the original princples/purposes of MO $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Apr 17, 2019 at 20:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Yemon, Sympathetic as I am with your position, we still lack a standard of how researchers in Y can ask questions about X. I am still surprised at the way this question was posted, and find it hard to distinguish from a question asked by student X who has not tried even a Google search. Perhaps you can think of a better way to handle this? Gerhard "What If Asker Is Unreal?" Paseman, 2019.04.17. $\endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    Commented Apr 17, 2019 at 22:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ My opinion (visibly not shared by some of you) is that I think the rules should aim at being the same for all people and acted regardless of the possible (now verified) identity. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented Apr 18, 2019 at 9:18
3
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

This cw question (on the spelling of Chebyshev and Cholesky) has good answers and I think it deserves to be reopened. (The sole Chebyshev case was worth a specific discussion, and for this reason I think it's fine to have it here rather than on a linguistics forum.)

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED]

Why did Bourbaki ignore the theory of categories? only survived 25 hours in 2013, collecting 5 answers; it has been closed ever since. The reason given (“not constructive”, “will likely solicit debate, arguments,...” rather than “facts, references,...”) would no longer be an option, and seems refuted by the facts, references, etc. since added in low-visibility comments.

While not intent on writing an answer myself, I don’t think it would hurt to clear the way for others to do so. (As of now, there are 4 votes to reopen, so only 1 more is needed — until they expire.)

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

[UNDELETED]

I propose to undelete my question:

Something like mathoverflow in other sciences

It was asked in the early days of MO and has some useful links and information. I Have no idea why some people wanted to delete it 11 months ago.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Status: [REOPENED] Thank you!

Request to reopen How to obtain the rational solution of a linear system efficiently?.

In light of recent discussions about being more welcoming to good faith questions from less experienced users, I believe this is an example of a question that was too quickly closed and not given due consideration. I had previously voted to reopen right after writing my answer, but it hadn't garnered enough attention then.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

A chess question of W.T. Tutte has been closed for at least 5 years. The only argument given for its closure at the time was that a moderator saw it as a question of chess strategy. I think the first phrasing was not clear. Most of the answers (including the green-ticked one) are indeed "chess answers".

However, it is not a question of chess strategy, it is a mathematics question, and my reply (14 upvotes currently) reports on a novel non-constructive result which is not limited to chess, but can apply to any game where widespread strategy-stealing is possible.

Looking through the page of guidelines as to why else this question might be marked "off-topic", the only thing which caught my eye is whether this is an "open question". It seems impossible to prove the largest question: that chess is not a win for Black. However there are many easier related Combinatorial Game Theory ideas, including scope strategy-stealing, symmetric zugzwangs, transition between hot & cold games and possibly random games.

Please can you re-open this question, and un-green-tick the current accepted answer (which has just 2 upvotes). Thank you.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As far as I know only the original asker can untick the accepted answer. This remark would have to be posed as a request in a comment on the question itself. I don't know if the closed status of the question interferes with the OP's ability to do so, though. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts Mod
    Commented Jan 22, 2021 at 10:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The original asker was last seen on MathOverflow in March of 2018, so unaccepting may be asking too much. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Commented Jan 22, 2021 at 12:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the useful comments. If it's problematic to unaccept, I suppose I would say it's kind of secondary - the main request is to unclose the question, please. $\endgroup$
    – Andrew Buchanan
    Commented Jan 22, 2021 at 15:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Upvoted and voted to reopen; I enjoyed reading Andrew's contribution, and while I agree that open questions should be avoided this question is labeled as a reference request; the OP isn't looking for an answer to the open problem, only the most cutting edge literature which I think is a) an appropriate question for combinatorial game theorists and b) provided by Andrew's answer as far as I can tell. $\endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Commented Jan 22, 2021 at 22:36
  • $\begingroup$ So... what's happening now? Forget about the accepted answer. The question remains closed. This is all very opaque and unsatisfactory. Please can any moderator who reads this and feels it should not be reopened can reply here to explain their position. Thank you $\endgroup$
    – Andrew Buchanan
    Commented Jan 30, 2021 at 2:44
  • $\begingroup$ You keep referring to "moderators", Andrew. So far as I can see, no moderator has had anything to do with the question. The comments, and the five votes to close, all came from ordinary users, not from moderators. The moderators of this site are generally reluctant to get involved in matters that can be settled by users. I'm out of suggestions as to what to do next. Sometimes, you do your best, and lose anyway. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Commented Jan 30, 2021 at 23:19
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, Gerry. So there's no reason why the closers should visit here. How close are we to unclosing it? All I can think to add is some info about Bill Tutte himself. He wasn't just one of the founders of graph theory, he was one of the heroes of British code-breaking. When I visited Bletchley Park, I saw an exhibition dedicated to Tutte's achievements. As one website says: "Alan Turing cracked the Enigma Code with knowledge of what the technology looked like, Bill [Tutte] cracked the Lorenz Code without knowledge of what the technology looked like and how it worked." $\endgroup$
    – Andrew Buchanan
    Commented Jan 31, 2021 at 15:34
1
2 3 4

You must log in to answer this question.

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