25
$\begingroup$

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.)

$\endgroup$
  • 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 Jun 27 '13 at 21:10
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @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 Jun 27 '13 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 Jun 27 '13 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 Jun 27 '13 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 Jun 28 '13 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 Jun 28 '13 at 16:59
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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 Jul 3 '13 at 17:44
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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 Jul 3 '13 at 17:54
  • $\begingroup$ People are now misusing this post in order to find questions related to the closed/deleted questions to downvote and close. $\endgroup$ – Joseph Van Name Apr 17 at 3:13

98 Answers 98

-2
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ 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! $\endgroup$ – Lucia Mar 20 '17 at 14:43
-2
$\begingroup$

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

$\endgroup$
-2
$\begingroup$

[REOPENED, RECLOSED, REOPENED]

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).

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Dec 21 '13 at 3:35
  • $\begingroup$ (I may misremember. Probably buried somewhere on tea. I'll post a link if I manage to find it...) $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Dec 21 '13 at 4:24
  • $\begingroup$ 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). $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Dec 21 '13 at 4:44
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding open-close wars, I did see a comment by François at tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1579/2/… which might be pertinent. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Dec 21 '13 at 5:21
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, that may be it. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Dec 21 '13 at 6:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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" $\endgroup$ – user9072 Dec 21 '13 at 10:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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). $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Dec 21 '13 at 12:07
  • $\begingroup$ Couldn't you at least just have deleted it now? The abuse here starts to get annoying. $\endgroup$ – user9072 Dec 22 '13 at 2:39
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ 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). $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Dec 22 '13 at 3:39
  • $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – user9072 Dec 22 '13 at 12:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @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.) $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Dec 22 '13 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ (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.) $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Dec 22 '13 at 13:30
  • $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – user9072 Dec 22 '13 at 16:18
-3
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Dec 31 '14 at 0:37
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Lucia Dec 31 '14 at 0:52
-4
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ 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). $\endgroup$ – SSequence Aug 2 '17 at 22:11
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – SSequence Aug 16 '17 at 3:43
-4
$\begingroup$

[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.

$\endgroup$
-7
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 14 '13 at 6:22
  • $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Jul 19 '13 at 1:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 19 '13 at 1:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – user9072 Jul 19 '13 at 12:44
  • $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Jul 20 '13 at 2:47
  • $\begingroup$ Also, I would be grateful for explanations from those who downvoted. $\endgroup$ – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Jul 23 '13 at 2:55
  • $\begingroup$ The original link is broken, due to "moderation." Should this answer now be deleted? $\endgroup$ – user25199 Jul 23 '13 at 8:36
  • $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – user9072 Jul 23 '13 at 8:50
  • $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – user25199 Jul 23 '13 at 9:05
-7
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The eccentric genius Perelman knows better than to post questions to meta.mathoverflow that are clearly off-topic there. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Apr 24 at 13:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson It would be fun if Perelman is reading these threads :) $\endgroup$ – joro Apr 24 at 14:24
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson On second thought according to wikipedia Perelman quitted mathematics, so he wouldn't have posted for entirely different reasons. $\endgroup$ – joro Apr 25 at 11:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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