# Requests for reopen and undelete votes for closed and deleted questions

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

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.)

• 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 :) Jun 27, 2013 at 21:10
• @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."
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Jun 27, 2013 at 22:06
• @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). Jun 27, 2013 at 22:31
• 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. Jun 27, 2013 at 22:32
• 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. Jun 28, 2013 at 9:21
• @AsafKaragila Btw, this is why doing it separately is imo better, you get a lot more feedback and discussion. Jun 28, 2013 at 16:59
• 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. Jul 3, 2013 at 17:44
• 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. Jul 3, 2013 at 17:54

[REOPENED]

The question Why there exists a non-split sequence with the condition that $pdM=\infty$ was originally posted with unexplained hypotheses and notation, and I voted to close and left a comment. The OP has edited the question and it now seems basically fine. I've voted to reopen

[Undeleted]

Could I request that Question 290941, "Is the Normal centralizer problem in P?" be undeleted? It is a sensible question, and I spent some time finding a reference for the answer. It was then deleted by the poster - I have no idea why.

[UNDELETED AND REOPENED]

Can finite binary self-distributive algebras fit into small $n$-ary self-distributive algebras?

Can finite binary self-distributive algebras fit into small n -ary self-distributive algebras?

This question was deleted because it got no upvotes. A possible reason that the question did not get any upvotes is that it necessarily requires $$n$$-ary fundamental operations for $$n>2$$ and mathematicians typically do not work with ternary or $$n$$-ary fundamental operations See this question for possible explanations and for a discussion of ternary operations. Another possible reason it did not gain any upvotes is that the notion of $$n$$-ary self-distributivity has barely been studied.

Here are some reasons why the question and notions behind the question are reasonable.

1. The notion of $$n$$-ary self-distributivity generalizes the notion of an “inner endomorphism” to a more general context. I have encountered $$n$$-ary self-distributivity in my encounters with ternary and $$n$$-ary Laver tables (ternary Laver tables are really cool).

2. While the notion of $$n$$-ary self-distributivity may seem a bit difficult to investigate, the hull of an $$n$$-ary self-distributive algebra allows one to use binary self-distributivity to study $$n$$-ary self-distributivity. Since binary self-distributivity is easier to grapple with than $$n$$-ary self-distributivity, one should always take the hull of an $$n$$-ary self-distributive algebra.

3. This question is one of the more basic questions one can ask about the hull of $$n$$-ary self-distributive algebras and about the nature of $$n$$-ary self-distributivity.

• Now, someone has cast an unexplained and unjustified downvote against this question. I have been getting many such unjustified downvotes for some time now. Mar 31, 2019 at 2:44
• Now that I think about it, a 50 point bounty would have probably prevented such a question from being deleted in the first place. Apr 17, 2019 at 0:26

[UN DELETED AND REOPENED]

Is the variety of ternary self-distributive algebras generated by its finite members?

Is the variety of ternary self-distributive algebras generated by its finite members?

To convince you that this is a good question, let me explain a little about the mathematics behind this question.

Richard Laver has constructed a sequence $$(A_{n})_{n\in\omega}$$ of finite self-distributive algebras (which I now call the classical Laver tables), and he has shown under the existence of very large cardinals that the free self-distributive algebra on one generator embeds into $$\varprojlim_{n\in\omega}A_{n}$$. In particular, the free self-distributive algebra on one generator is contained in the variety generated by the classical Laver tables.

So I have extended the notion of the classical Laver table to a wide class of structures including the multigenic Laver tables. Furthermore, I have shown under strong large cardinal hypotheses that the free self-distributive algebra on countably many generators embeds into an inverse limit of multigenic Laver tables (the multigenic Laver tables are like the classical Laver tables but with multiple generators). In particular, the multigenic Laver tables generate the variety of all self-distributive algebras.

Now, the notion of self-distributivity can be generalized to $$n$$-ary self-distributivity and these generalized notions of self-distributivity give one an abstract notion of what it means for an algebraic structure to have “inner endomorphisms.” The notion of a Laver table can also be generalized to the notion of a ternary and $$n$$-ary Laver table. The only problem is that while the classical and multigenic Laver tables are always locally finite, the ternary Laver tables are in general not locally finite. The variety of ternary self-distributive algebras is probably generated by the ternary Laver tables, but since the ternary Laver tables are not locally finite, it is hard for me to predict whether the variety of self-distributive algebras is generated by its finite members.

[DELETED, Undeleted]

Reversible varieties

In this question I asked about reversible varieties, and it seems like the question has been deleted unfairly. The question has 2 unexplained and unjustified downvotes and only 1 upvote, so it automatically got deleted. I do not believe that these downvotes have any legitimacy since I have recently been receiving many downvotes and all of these downvotes for the questions that I have asked are without any explanation.

In this question, I proposed the notion of a reversible variety since I noticed that several varieties including the varieties of groups, racks, quandles, and other varieties have a flavor of reversibility in the sense that the fundamental operations are simply projections of bijective functions which are composed of these fundamental operations. I think of the notion of a reversible variety as being a generalization of the notion of a group. I therefore wanted to know if this notion has been investigated before in the concept of universal algebra, and I also want to see more interesting examples of reversible varieties.

This question so far does not have much to do with reversible computation, and the motivation for this question did not arise from reversible computation.

Incidentally, this follow-up question (Is this condition sufficient for a variety to be reversible?) which is also about reversible varieties has not been downvoted nor upvoted (and hence not yet deleted).

• People are misusing meta in order to cast more unjustified downvotes to questions related to the deleted questions. Apr 17, 2019 at 2:55
• Is there any reason why this post has a downvote? Apr 17, 2019 at 3:46
• The MO community has recently made it exceedingly clear that they do not want me on this site. Apr 17, 2019 at 3:52
• I see one downvote. ONE! A downvote doesn't mean someone doesn't want you here. I know you're not interested in my advice, but youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M Apr 17, 2019 at 8:56
• Oh, and, for the 17th time, if you feel you're being targeted with downvotes, please, please flag for moderator attention. Complaining here is pointless, as only a moderator can do anything about such a situation. Apr 17, 2019 at 9:02
• Question has been undeleted BUT unless it sees some action (answers, upvotes) it will sooner or later be robo-deleted again. Apr 17, 2019 at 9:07
• I have been flagging these sorts of posts for unjustified downvotes. In my recent experience, such flags have been declined. Apr 19, 2019 at 23:50

[No response from the OP, so I will leave this lie. I'm not that keen that I'm going to chase it up]

The question How to sort differential equation list? seems to me to be not uninteresting. The original asked about how to sort a list of DEs in Maple, but it's not really the Maple content that the asker is interested in, but rather if there is some reasonable ordering on (a class of) differential equations such that given a collection of them one could sort it into a list, so as to compare with other resources like OEIS.

It still very badly worded, but the above is what I think the OP wanted to ask.

• I'd rather see OP rewrite the question so it's actually comprehensible. Perhaps by explaining it to someone who is fluent in Emglish, math, and whatever language is native for OP. Jul 20, 2019 at 12:20
• Yes, I agree. This is more of a preliminary notice. I was going to encourage the OP to explain it more clearly. Jul 20, 2019 at 23:37
• Given the terrible language, it’s not even clear to me if the question is really about differential equations, or if it’s just a mangled form of different. Jul 21, 2019 at 8:40

I'd like to know why my question Looking for a conference about renormalization group methods has been closed.

As I said in the comments, there are other similar question such as the one that asking about Conferences about homotopy theory, one looking for Mathematical conferences in general, were rather positively received and allowed to attract nice answers.

Is there anything I can do to get it reopend? Maybe it should be CW?

• You are comparing to questions that were asked more than 3 years ago. The sort of soft questions people like has changed. Nov 11, 2013 at 20:15
• Another issue here is that this question is much narrower than the ones you listed, which were likely to be of interest to large groups of mathematicians. Nov 11, 2013 at 21:12

[REOPENED]

This question about Zariski topology is interesting, relevant but unclear, and it attracted two excellent answers. The question is ambigious and unclear because the situation is genuinly unclear to the OP who is a professional mathematician trying to explore a topic. It is unclear in a way where it is possible to understand what the author is thinking, and give useful answers for him and for others.

• Why do you expect the OP to be a professional mathematician? Also, he has been asked a quite specific question in the comments which might clarify what he means. Without an answer to that question I do not feel there is any good reason to reopen the question. Apr 21, 2014 at 6:36
• In an effort to understand how people use this thread, and think it should be used, with an eye towards improving our procedures, I would like to know if you: a. did not know of meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1650/… or b. did know of it but still posted here.
– user9072
Apr 21, 2014 at 11:18
• Hi Quid, My post follows Frank Thorne's question (using similar wordings) and Todd's remark that mentioned this thread. I agree with Todd that the question is unclear (and not merely "slightly ambigious") but I think that the question reflects an issue which can be unclear to researchers in mathematics, and is thus research-level and should be welcome on MO. Of course, an endorsement to open not coming from the OP himself carries additional weight and I also want to endorse a policy of allowing umbigious questions of the kind a working mathematician occasionally have. Apr 21, 2014 at 16:12
• Gil, I think such a policy is contrary to the goals of MathOverflow. I think you should endorse a policy of encouraging a questioner to participate in improving their question. This policy might mean a 48-hour hold before a "soft-" close of a question, but to have a new user ask something that needs improvement and does not respond to requests for that improvement is a situation that does not bode well for the forum. Better to make a temporary edit on the new person's behalf, or close the question. Gerhard "Or Start A New Question" Paseman, 2014.04.21 Apr 21, 2014 at 17:07
• Right Gerhard, I certainly demand that the OP will make all possible effort to make his question clear before posing a vague question. But sometimes we encounter in our research/study questions which are (or seem to be) inherently vague. Apr 21, 2014 at 17:19
• Thank you for the detailed reply! To avoid all risk of misunderstanding, let me stress again that my question was not meant as indirect criticism of you posting here. As the thread exists, it is a reasonable usage of it.
– user9072
Apr 21, 2014 at 19:32
• Gil, it seems we are in general agreement. When (the community of) MathOverflow is robust enough to handle such questions, then a more lenient policy can be adopted. I think the current success is due to the fact that almost all of the unclosed questions are focused, ask for specific things, and require little or no discussion as to meaning (after the formulation has stabilized). I think overestimating the robustness of the community is a real danger: supplementing vague questions with answerable portions may be a solution. Gerhard "Wants Success Without A Doubt" Paseman, 2014.04.21 Apr 21, 2014 at 20:20
• I agree with Tobias. Referring to the OP as a "professional mathematician" is unwarranted and gilds the lily. The form of the question leaves little doubt that the OP is a student ("recently studied algebra", etc.), and OP still hasn't bothered to clarify the question, and I still disagree with "it is unclear in a way where it is possible to understand what the author is thinking" -- one can only guess what he/she is thinking. Why this question is being given a pass is simply beyond me.
– Todd Trimble Mod
Apr 22, 2014 at 16:32
• My confusion guys, I thought that Frank Thorne is the OP. Sorry! Apr 22, 2014 at 17:34
• I agree with Todd Trimble on this. When a question is closed as unclear, and this one is admittedly so, then it makes sense to edit and clarify it before reopening (which may well be warranted here). I am a little surprised that no one has bothered to edit this question, and yet it has been reopened. Apr 22, 2014 at 17:53
• Silly mistake! Sorry again, but at least I learned the expression "gilds the lily. :) Apr 22, 2014 at 18:08

[REOPENED]

Mathematical explenation for why warm water freezes faster than cold water. Mathematical study of Mpemba effect? is a good question in applied mathematics and I propose to open it.

[DELETED by OP]

Please re-open this. If you find it worth, or least please comment if you think its not worth it, with reason. I have since edited the question and I believe the current version is more clear.

[Deleted]

Is there any application of Mochizuki's IUT for mathematical physics?

This has been closed as being "primarily opinion-based" --- if there is a possible application I would actually be very interested to learn about it.

• What is good about a question that asks whether a theory that has not been widely understood/accepted has applications to problems that are not specified. And this is the most polite way in which I can describe that and other Mochizuki questions! Mar 20, 2017 at 14:43

Redeleted

Requesting to undelete my question. I carefully worked through the comments in order to rephrase the question so it would be more understandable what I'm asking for, only to see that it has been deleted within hours (instead of days as stated in the help center), preventing effective research.

update (27/1/2019): the question has now been undeleted

Only two more votes needed to reopen Funny names of mathematical objects?

There is valid comment that very similar question exists on MSE, but we believe that this reasoning will close a lot of other stuff.

I request for reopen the question with identificartor 423548 and title Soft question around the equivalent forms of Riemann hypothesis: an overview of the role of these equivalent forms, and this post is adressed to the readers (the recipient isn't, in exclusive, the professor who edited this thread post(s) in Meta).

I have a critic. The clousure of my question seems unfair, and now it's a challenge, for all us, to reopen it. If you've upvoted to close it, please be a leader and help me to reopen the question again.

With reverence and honors for the professors who stated an equivalent form to the Riemann hypothesis, I ask about the freedom to discuss the (mathematical) meaning of such big collection of equivalent forms. Don't wait, please, the next new dozen of equivalent forms and help now to improve the understanding about what's the Riemann hypothesis.

We must to know... don't put in risk the reputation of your profession in the way that any student could to ask, in a hall, the reason why is closed my question in MathOverflow.

'We must to know', said a mathematician. And at this date, in which we've forgotten the naive days, I'm sure of these words, that we can do it. Because we, mathematicians, need just an Attic night to rescue our civilizations. So, this can be a starting point of a coming hope memories, and a chance for all us.

• Why the Riemann hypothesis and not the free group factor problem? Also, it is consistent for people to believe that the RH is important while believing that the question you posted on MO is not going to help. (I did not vote to close your question, and I did not downvote it) Jul 5 at 12:50
• "Because we, mathematicians, need just an attic night to rescue our civilizations." I love this. I don't have the foggiest idea what it means, but I love it. Jul 5 at 13:28
• I've upvoted both responses, yours professor @YemonChoi and the response of the other professor. I once time was a student, and we think in this way, that a professor as you or the professor in previous comment aren't a stamp collectors of hundred of equivalent forms of a core problem in mathematics, and isn't my view. Because aren't my equivalent forms, aren't my words 'we must to know', isn't my profession, I'm just an amateur mathematician. You can to ask to your colleagues (professors that you know) about the importance of Riemann hypothesis in modern mathematics. Many thanks for boths. Jul 5 at 13:44
• Wikipedia has the article Aulus Gellius that refers his work Attic Nights. Many thanks for your attention in my posts @GerryMyerson . And yes, we can to rescue our civilization and culture as mathematicians, because even in the worse conditions only are required a few men and women to burn a fire with flames of hope (this fire as metaphor of critical thinking and constructive feedback in mathematics or physics). Jul 5 at 17:37
• Please I add also as reference, if I interpret well the words of authors, the last paragraph in page 58 and the (first) paragraph in page 59, both of Chapter 17 from their book Barry Mazur and William Stein, Prime Numbers and the Riemann Hypothesis, Cambridge University Press (2016). For instance you can to read (in page 59) that the authors (if I refer well) coined a denomination for this "conjecture" (I mean the Riemann hypothesis). Jul 13 at 13:16
• Please if some user can to help upvoting this post that he/she does it. I appreciate it, many thanks. Aug 20 at 16:19

[DELETED]

I don't understand why the question

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/191499/can-the-divisibility-by-7-test-be-extended-to-preserve-the-remainder

has attracted such heavy downvoting and was closed so quickly. I have not thought deeply about the question, but a look at the OP's previous questions and his profile suggests this is not some idle high-school question.

• I find the closure understandable: given the volume of off-topic questions, and given the somewhat recreational tone (which makes it seem not too close to modern research concerns), it's not surprising that people would vote to close without much thought. I'm not convinced yet it would be good for MO, but I haven't thought deeply about it either.
– Todd Trimble Mod
Dec 31, 2014 at 0:37
• Looking at the question, I think it was reasonable to close it. The test of divisibility is to replace $10a+b$ by $a-2b$. The complaint was that $a-2b$ is not the same as $10a+b \pmod 7$. Well then $3$ times $a-2b$ leaves the same remainder. I didn't downvote this, or vote to close, but I also can't see voting to reopen either. Dec 31, 2014 at 0:52

The question Is Euclid dead? has gone through a couple of rounds of closing and reopening. It is currently closed (and I have voted to reopen).

I think that the responses make the question worthwhile, independently of any perceived agendas behind it (see here for that). And I believe we had agreed that in cases of questions that clearly generate good responses (the quality of which may not have yet peaked), the default if there are closing/reopen "wars" was to keep the question open. Regardless, I believe this particular question deserves to stay active.

(N.B. I have made a substantial edit to the question -- Todd Trimble).

• Andres, can you remind me where this agreement was reached? Relevant might be the Stone Soup thread, particularly this answer meta.mathoverflow.net/a/1047/2926, but I'm skeptical that 'agreement' was reached.
– Todd Trimble Mod
Dec 21, 2013 at 3:35
• (I may misremember. Probably buried somewhere on tea. I'll post a link if I manage to find it...) Dec 21, 2013 at 4:24
• Okay, thanks. I have just now substantially edited the question to remove what I thought were the most objectionable aspects (as mentioned by Joël for instance).
– Todd Trimble Mod
Dec 21, 2013 at 4:44
• Regarding open-close wars, I did see a comment by François at tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1579/2/… which might be pertinent.
– Todd Trimble Mod
Dec 21, 2013 at 5:21
• Ah, that may be it. Dec 21, 2013 at 6:04
• I think we also had agreement that controversial questions especially if they already have their proper meta thread are discussed there first before posting in this thread. (That meta got deleted at some poin but from the timestamps it seems it had returned already when you posted this). In addition "a couple of rounds of closing and reopening" seems like a significant exageration. When you wrote that it was only reclosed once (as is now). At best this are 1 and 1/2 rounds so in no sense "a couple"
– user9072
Dec 21, 2013 at 10:41
• I agree that this thread should only be used for those questions that are not controversial, and where their reason for not having been reopened is more likely due to people not having noticed something (either because several people misread the question, or because the question has been edited). Dec 21, 2013 at 12:07
• Couldn't you at least just have deleted it now? The abuse here starts to get annoying.
– user9072
Dec 22, 2013 at 2:39
• Well, I don't see it as abuse, but I think quite a few of us are getting tired of this troubled question. I would like to register some disagreement with a claim that the answers have made the question worthwhile: I have felt an obligation to delete at least five of them, and some that have remained emit more heat than light. My personal opinion is that the question should remain closed: it has proven to be more trouble than it's worth (but perhaps I am too close to this to be fully impartial, and I am reticent about being the one to bring down the hammer, after all my activity).
– Todd Trimble Mod
Dec 22, 2013 at 3:39
• @ToddTrimble 'abuse' was perhaps a bit a strong word. But, 1st, it is (counterfactually, IMO) claimed that due to some agreement not even recallable (upon being asked) the q has to be reopened, thereby implying that those (re)closing it did not follow 'agreement'. 2nd, posting here while a q has an active meta thread is rather not to be done. This was pointed out directly by 2 users (Tobias Kildetoft and me), but completely ignored, even editing twice at least the 2nd one being avoidable, except if one still just wants it to get it opened without proper disc. about the merits.
– user9072
Dec 22, 2013 at 12:53
• @quid Having two posts on such closely related topics is a little awkward, but a justification for 'ignoring' the other thread is that Stefan's question was about the general propriety of using MO to wage a campaign, slightly different to what is being asked here (which is directly about the specific MO question; we've been using this space recently for reopen requests). I think Andres is within rights to uphold the distinction (which has been muddied a little). Also, there have been various vague 'guidelines' proposed and gropings for 'agreement' for open-close tugs of war, as in (cont.)
– Todd Trimble Mod
Dec 22, 2013 at 13:25
• (cont.) the Stone Soup thread -- another awkward situation where exactly what was said or semi-agreed on by some parties becomes hard to recall. (I think those semi-agreed-on situations really have to be watched closely; they make me feel uncomfortable.)
– Todd Trimble Mod
Dec 22, 2013 at 13:30
• @ToddTrimble: The 'ignoring' did not refer to ignoring the other thread but the related remarks here. I know various things got discussed; the question is what precisely should apply. The post is in this and other ways (eg, a couple of rounds) a bit generous regarding facts. This is especially problematic as as documented not everybody takes the time to get familiar themselves with a thread before voting open/close on it. I think a bit more care is to be expected from a highrep user when suggesting a reopening.
– user9072
Dec 22, 2013 at 16:18

[DELETED]

My question is on hold and seems fairly likely to be on the way to be closed. I request a re-opening: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/275786/counterexample-required-standard-notations

I have edited my original post to post my question in a formatted way now. As I have stated a few times in that thread, if someone feels that there are issues or doubts with regards to clarity of the question, then I would try to address that.

• The question can be deleted as I have figured the answer to my question as to why a refutation example would exist (for the criterion in question). Aug 2, 2017 at 22:11
• I think I didn't read original post carefully enough before editing. As I have understood now reading it more carefully, it seems that it is only required to mention the [re-opening] for a question at the start, but not necessarily a [deletion]. But I guess it doesn't matter much anyway. Aug 16, 2017 at 3:43

[Deleted]

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/283185/the-distinction-between-countable-and-uncountable-infinity-within-a-constructivi

The fact that this question admits the kind of commentary that has been posted by Thomas Benjamin shows that it has content suitable for mathoverflow.

Thank you for your earlier support, Professor Myerson. I would like to request https://mathoverflow.net/questions/135605/how-to-discover-counterexamples-and-required-objects to be reopened. On the claim that it is "too broad," I would like to propound the suggestion by Dr Asghari in the comments:

to address Hennry concern I suggest to change the question to CW and let a more experienced MO user revise the question in an appropriate way for MO...

In addition, I do not understand why my question is considered "too broad" in comparison with Mathematical habits of thought and action which would be of use to non-mathematicians. It would seem that habits can be myriad as well as highly subjective, though they constitute answers to that Question. Notwithstanding the potentially wide ambit to Mathematical habits of thought and action which would be of use to non-mathematicians, it remains open and its multifarious answers prove very helpful and insightful.

• The "instructional counterexamples" question was posted in March 2010. MO has changed since then, and it is generally accepted that "but question x from 2010 is still open" is not a sufficient argument for keeping question x' from 2013 open. Jul 14, 2013 at 6:22
• @GerryMyerson: Thank you for your information. I have been trying to browse through past, more recent Soft Questions to grasp my question's fitness and may have found one that I hope can support my question. I have edited my request above.
– user36418
Jul 19, 2013 at 1:16
• You really have to make a case for your question on its own merits. I think you have to rewrite it in line with the comments on it to give it a chance of being (re-)re-opened. By the way, the "habits" question was somewhat controversial, and went through a close-reopen cycle. Jul 19, 2013 at 1:59
• To strength what @GerryMyerson said "somewhat controversial" is quite an understatement of my opinion on this other question. And, Le Pressentiment in my opinion you use this thread in a way it it is not intended. You anyway have a meta-question on your question, and there is already an entry in this thread for you question, and now you edit your additional entry. This is a bit too much, in my opinion.
– user9072
Jul 19, 2013 at 12:44
• @quid: I have made another post but in the Meta-question following your request. I referenced the question on Habits because the sheer number of users who have upvoted, favourited, and its status as open seem to imply its relevance and significance. Please let me know if you have other suggestions.
– user36418
Jul 20, 2013 at 2:47
• Also, I would be grateful for explanations from those who downvoted.
– user36418
Jul 23, 2013 at 2:55
• The original link is broken, due to "moderation." Should this answer now be deleted?
– user25199
Jul 23, 2013 at 8:36
• @Carl: the question was deleted (by users) some time ago (I slightly disagree with the deletion for abstarct reasons, and there are two votes to undelete) before the latest edit to this answer. There thus seems no reason that now this answer should be deleted. (Though I wished this entire episode came to an end soon.) // To OP: if you mean the downvotes to this meta-answer, I think it is clear enough from what I wrote why one might downvote this (which I actually did). But also one can consider a downvote simply as vote against reopening.
– user9072
Jul 23, 2013 at 8:50
• @quid and OP: Sorry. I guess the point is that ordinary users cannot see the original question after deletion and so cannot participate in discussion. But as you say, this is probably for the best.
– user25199
Jul 23, 2013 at 9:05

On meta: Ethical standards of the field of mathematics was closed and currently is at score +1/-7. I suppose the eccentric genius Perelman knows better than 5 users voting to close.

• The eccentric genius Perelman knows better than to post questions to meta.mathoverflow that are clearly off-topic there. Apr 24, 2019 at 13:13
• @GerryMyerson It would be fun if Perelman is reading these threads :)
– joro
Apr 24, 2019 at 14:24
• @GerryMyerson On second thought according to wikipedia Perelman quitted mathematics, so he wouldn't have posted for entirely different reasons.
– joro
Apr 25, 2019 at 11:37

I had recently posted this answer which got 3 dvs plus a delete vote shortly after posting. I was quite upset by this because I was fairly confident with my answer as I actually read a considerable chunk of both of Needhams book.

If there is a mistake in my judgement, could it be that the mistake is pointed out instead of giving a barrage of dvs? Thanks.

Here is a picture of the post:

One person commented how it is that I am identifying asymptotics is the ultimate equality. It simply is the same thing. I believe Needham himself invented the equality for the book as I have gone through many books and have yet to find a similar concept being used to describe the issue.

Needham himself states in this book that the concept is more or less "proof beyond reasonable doubt" in the common sense than a proof in a rigorous mathematical sense

Further to verify my claims, Needham himself mentions that the ultimate equality is an equivalence relation:

If an exact definition of this concept is sought, I doubt that any possible person can give an authoritative answer to it. As only Needham would know as this concept with the name that Needham used is not shown in any standard DG books.

# Edit:

I have included this section in hopes of showing how my answer solves the question.

• Your screenshot shows that the answer was deleted by a moderator. That means it cannot be undeleted by regular users: Which actions by moderators cannot be reversed by community? (OTOH maybe one of the moderators might respond here.) Aug 18 at 12:31
• Fingers crossed I guess. @MartinSleziak Aug 18 at 13:33
• You didn’t just get a lot of downvotes, you also got a lot of feedback in the comments that you turn a deaf ear to. Basically, there was no “mistake” in what you wrote, but it did not answer the question. The question is not what Needham means by ultimate equality; that much is clear, and already stated in the question. The question is what Needham means by ultimately vanishing, which you did not answer. (As pointed out in comments under the question, it does not make much sense to interpret it as “ultimately equal to $0$”.) Aug 18 at 14:00
• I think the issue many, including me, had was that your post explained "ultimately equal", which the questioner said they understood—not "ultimately vanishing", which was the subject of the question. Now that you have added the addendum, one can point out that the questioner considers and rejects "ultimately equal to $0$" because, in the quotient-based definition, either every quantity is ultimately equal to $0$, or the quotient is ill formed (depending on which quantity goes in the denominator). See the post body and @GeraldEdgar's comment. Aug 18 at 16:48
• I misspoke twice. My link to @GeraldEdgar's comment had a typo; it should have been mathoverflow.net/posts/comments/1102369. I should also have said that either nothing (not everything) was ultimately equal to $0$ (according to the definition $\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac0{B(\epsilon)} = 1$) or that the question was meaningless (according to the definition $\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{A(\epsilon)}0 = 1$). Aug 18 at 20:10