# Requests for reopen and undelete votes for on-hold, 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 :) – Manishearth Jun 27 '13 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 Jun 27 '13 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). – Manishearth Jun 27 '13 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. – Manishearth Jun 27 '13 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. – Willie Wong Jun 28 '13 at 9:21
• @AsafKaragila Btw, this is why doing it separately is imo better, you get a lot more feedback and discussion. – Manishearth Jun 28 '13 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. – Dilaton Jul 3 '13 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. – Dilaton Jul 3 '13 at 17:54
• People are now misusing this post in order to find questions related to the closed/deleted questions to downvote and close. – Joseph Van Name 2 days ago

[REOPENED]

How slowly can it takes for the Fibonacci terms in a partially permutative self-distributive algebra to stabilize?

How slowly can it takes for the Fibonacci terms in a partially permutative self-distributive algebra to stabilize?

If $$(X,*)$$ satisfies the self-distributivity law $$x*(y*z)=(x*y)*(x*z)$$, then define an action of the positive braid monoid $$B_{n}^{+}$$ on $$X^{n}$$ by letting $$(x_{1},\dots,x_{n})\cdot \sigma_{i}=(x_{1},\dots,x_{i-1},x_{i}*x_{i+1},x_{i},x_{i+2},\dots,x_{n}).$$ Then $$(X,*)$$ is partially permutative if for each pair $$x,y\in X$$, there is some $$n$$ where $$(x,y)\cdot\sigma_{1}^{n}=(x,y)\cdot\sigma_{1}^{n+2},(x,y)\cdot\sigma_{1}^{n+1}=(x,y)\cdot\sigma_{1}^{n+3}$$ and if $$(x,y)\cdot\sigma_{1}^{n}=(r,s)$$, then $$(x,y)\cdot\sigma_{1}^{n+1}=(s,r)$$.

The motivation behind partially permutative self-distributive algebras is that the quotient algebras of elementary embeddings $$\mathcal{E}_{\lambda}/\equiv^{\gamma}$$ are always partially permutative (and much more) and because the action of $$B_{n}^{+}$$ on $$X^{n}$$ is simplified whenever $$(X,*)$$ is partially permutative.

I asked this question since I wonder how long it will take for the sequence $$((x,y)\cdot\sigma_{1}^{n})_{n\in\omega}$$ to stabilize if we know the cardinality of $$X$$.

Under large cardinal assumptions, we know that for all $$N$$, there is a finite partially permutative algebra $$(X,*)$$ and $$x,y\in X$$ where $$((x,y)\cdot\sigma_{1}^{n})_{n\in\omega}$$ takes more than $$N$$ steps to stabilize, but I do not know if one can remove the large cardinal hypotheses from this result.

[REOPENED]

An integral representation of the Riemann zeta function was closed, with commenters asking for more information. Author has now supplied the requested information. Perhaps the question should be reopened.

[REOPENED]

I request to reopen my question

Different Metrics for Baire Space and their induced Topologies

At first I had some flaws in the definition which I corrected by several edits and reedits, which made my post meandering. Now I totally rephrased the question and wrote it new. Also maybe I could delete the comment on my first definitions which are out of context now.

[REOPENED]

The question Square of primary ideals was originally closed as being "unclear what you're asking", but after the edit I don't think this is a valid reason anymore. (I'm no expert here, but it seems like a reasonable question to me.)

[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. – Tobias Kildetoft Apr 21 '14 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 '14 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. – Gil Kalai Apr 21 '14 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 – Gerhard Paseman Apr 21 '14 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. – Gil Kalai Apr 21 '14 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 '14 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 – Gerhard Paseman Apr 21 '14 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 Apr 22 '14 at 16:32
• My confusion guys, I thought that Frank Thorne is the OP. Sorry! – Gil Kalai Apr 22 '14 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. – Lucia Apr 22 '14 at 17:53
• Silly mistake! Sorry again, but at least I learned the expression "gilds the lily. :) – Gil Kalai Apr 22 '14 at 18:08

[REOPENED]

(Edit: Since no one responded to the question of whether the closure reason is still valid, I took it upon myself to ask Joel David Hamkins, who discerns a clear and interesting interpretation and has expressed interest in answering, provided that the question remains open long enough. Therefore I cast a fourth vote to reopen.)

The post Can there be ordinals larger than those contained in Ord, and if so, can they be used to extend the constructible universe $L$? is currently on hold as "unclear what you're asking", but now that the question has been substantially edited, one user has flagged that this reason for on-hold no longer applies. If it is still unclear, then perhaps someone can say why, else I request a reopening.

• What I want to know is, why, when you ask people who wish to close a question to state their concerns, they don't? In the case of Noah S (as you can see from our conversation in the Comments), I was willing to address his concerns and would have been willing to address theirs as well. – Thomas Benjamin Dec 9 '14 at 16:15
• @ThomasBenjamin Yes, that would be nice. Three of the closers have professional interests in this area and could probably articulate such concerns, if they still apply (I think Noah S does too, but he was not one of the closers). Some people vote to close because they see no reason to disagree with other closers, as expressed here: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1954/… -- based on that stance, I wouldn't expect them to state their concerns. – Todd Trimble Dec 9 '14 at 20:08

[REOPENED]

Combinatorial puzzles involving half-integers

I believe it was put on-hold because of my inadequate definition of what I previously termed "guide lines". I fixed this. The only potential ambiguity left is my definition of "cells".

Moreover, the question garnered two upvotes in a very short period of time, so I feel reopening it is fair.

• The statement of the question does seem clear now; this means the "unclear what you're asking" no longer applies. The consideration then becomes whether it is considered on-topic for MO. – Todd Trimble Dec 29 '14 at 14:07
• So, Todd, do we reopen and then discuss whether it's on-topic? or do we decide whether it's on-topic, and, if it is, then reopen? – Gerry Myerson Dec 29 '14 at 18:40
• I think we only reopen it if we decide that it is on-topic. – Andy Putman Dec 29 '14 at 18:48
• @GerryMyerson What Andy said. Of course, people can decide on their own without there being a particular discussion. – Todd Trimble Dec 29 '14 at 18:50

The question

Mathematics of Computer science and AI

has recently been edited by someone after the OP in an effort to improve it, or make it more focused. I am ambivalent as to whether it should be reopened but I thought it deserved explicit mention/discussion on meta.MO

Mathematicians who were late learners?-list

Reason: How is this no longer relevant or specific to a certain geographical area or time? It is a valid history question. That can't be specific to a certain geographical area or time. I think this is a very interesting question; likely to help, or at least interest other users. Therefore think it makes no sense for this question to be closed, so I request it to be reopened.

[REOPENED]

I'd like to reopen When does $\nabla\times(\nabla\times F)=0$ imply $\nabla \times F=0$ . It is a clearly stated question, and seems like it has some interesting connections to differential topology.

[REOPENED]

{as of Mon Apr 11 15:03:06 UTC 2016}

The CW question Examples of math hoaxes/interesting jokes published on April Fool's day? was posted on 2016-04-01.

It has score of 69, 43 favorites and was answered by moderator.

I think it is too young to die and probably will edit, suggesting not to promote it to active on purpose.

[REOPENED]

I feel that the decision about closing my question:

was arbitrary. I hope that it will be reopened.

[UNDELETED]

which was auto-deleted due to lack of activity or votes, seems reasonable to me. But I am not a probabilist; comments from those who are would be welcome

• It's in danger of getting auto-deleted again, if it doesn't get some upvotes – isn't that right? – Gerry Myerson Mar 16 '17 at 3:47
• @GerryMyerson I think one upvote is sufficient, but I'm not sure – Yemon Choi Mar 16 '17 at 13:21

[DELETED]

I think that between the editing and the comments this question has been clarified and can be reopened.

• You think the question should be reopened, but doesn't deserve an upvote? -- I think it seems a bit weird to vote to reopen a question with no upvote, but 4 downvotes ... . – Stefan Kohl Feb 9 '17 at 14:16
• @Stefan, I'm sure the downvotes came before the editing. – Gerry Myerson Feb 9 '17 at 21:46
• Have voted to reopen – Yemon Choi Mar 15 '17 at 16:04
• @Yemon, the question was deleted some weeks ago. I imagine it has to be undeleted before it can be reopened. – Gerry Myerson Mar 15 '17 at 22:40
• @GerryMyerson: now undeleted – Yemon Choi Mar 16 '17 at 2:19
• @GerryMyerson Meanwhile the question has been autodeleted again since it is still closed and has non-positive score. To resurrect the question, it would take 3 undelete votes, 3 more reopen votes and either 5 upvotes (to reach score 1) or an answer, in order to permanently prevent it from being autodeleted again. – Stefan Kohl Mar 18 '17 at 20:42

[REOPENED]

Graduate-level reference on temporal point processes seems like a perfectly reasonable / . The topic is research level but could be introduced in an advanced graduate text or monograph.

[REOPENED]

I originally voted to close this question. I've since reconsidered, and I've voted to reopen.

Basically, there are easy counterexamples for infinitely generated modules, slightly more sophisticated counterexamples for finitely generated but not finitely presented modules, and a positive answer for finitely presented modules. In comments, knowledgeable people have made false claims, so I think it's probably close enough to "research level" to reopen.

[UNDELETED and then REOPENED]

seems to have been closed over-hastily. Those with sufficient rep can see fedja's comments, and I am prepared to believe quite readily that if fedja thinks it is non-trivial, it is non-trivial.

I would like to nominate this for re-opening.

• How does this work – can a deleted question be reopened without first being undeleted? or does reopening automatically accomplish undeleting? – Gerry Myerson Jul 28 '17 at 4:57

[REOPENED]

A game-theoretical question in a political economy model is a well-written math question coming from research in a field outside of mathematics. It may well be easy but I think overall it would be worthwhile to reward the author with an answer.

• You're right -- the question is vastly improved from its initial formulation. I voted to reopen. – Lucia Sep 21 '17 at 23:00
• Looking at the timeline I see that this question went through the reopen review with 3 votes to leave closed. However, it seems that some of the edits were made after the reviewers' votes. (Probably the OP is unaware that it is the first edit that pushes the question into the reopen review queue. Although I am not sure whether it made much difference in this specific case.) – Martin Sleziak Sep 22 '17 at 9:58

[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.

[REOPENED]

I would like to request to reopen Relation between the Hochschild cohomology of group algebras and groupoids. The original question was very vague, but it has since been edited and is now, in my opinion, a perfectly fine question.

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. – Tobias Kildetoft Nov 11 '13 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. – Andy Putman Nov 11 '13 at 21:12

[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.

[Re-opened] then [Re-closed]

Request to reopen Linear systems of equations with singular coefficient matrix.

This question has been mostly rewritten and has now 4 reopen votes, besides two answers.

[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

[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. – Joseph Van Name 2 days ago
• Is there any reason why this post has a downvote? – Joseph Van Name 2 days ago
• The MO community has recently made it exceedingly clear that they do not want me on this site. – Joseph Van Name 2 days ago
• 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 – Gerry Myerson yesterday
• 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. – Gerry Myerson yesterday
• Question has been undeleted BUT unless it sees some action (answers, upvotes) it will sooner or later be robo-deleted again. – Gerry Myerson yesterday

[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.

[REOPENED and now RECLOSED]

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 Dec 21 '13 at 3:35
• (I may misremember. Probably buried somewhere on tea. I'll post a link if I manage to find it...) – Andrés E. Caicedo Dec 21 '13 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 Dec 21 '13 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 Dec 21 '13 at 5:21
• Ah, that may be it. – Andrés E. Caicedo Dec 21 '13 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 '13 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). – Tobias Kildetoft Dec 21 '13 at 12:07
• Couldn't you at least just have deleted it now? The abuse here starts to get annoying. – user9072 Dec 22 '13 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 Dec 22 '13 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 '13 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 Dec 22 '13 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 Dec 22 '13 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 '13 at 16:18

[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 Dec 31 '14 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. – Lucia Dec 31 '14 at 0:52

[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! – Lucia Mar 20 '17 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