up vote 17 down vote favorite
3

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).

Note: Many moderators do not wish to cast their binding reopen vote till it is the final fifth vote needed. To help moderators participate optimally, the following scheme may work. Moderators may add comments indicating their desire to cast a reopen vote. If someone notices that there are enough mod votes to bring the reopen tally to 5, then please ping/flag a mod to reopen the question.

share
For reopen requests that are run-of-the-mill (e.g. aren't meant to debate reasons for closure), do you think it would make sense to have a generic reopen-request thread, so that we don't end up with hundreds or thousands of questions on such. Then each request would simply be an answer in the reopen thread, and it being bumped would get the same exposure as a new question. Thoughts? Unless I hear any objections I will create such a thread. – Gone Oct 24 '12 at 17:11
@Bill: Yes. This crossed my mind after posting this. I agree that it would be a goo idea. – Asaf Karagila Oct 24 '12 at 17:37
I didn't expect that you would edit this specific question into the general question (I was writing another). But since it is done, we may as well go with it. – Gone Oct 24 '12 at 18:28
2  
@Bill: I saw no reason to wait with that idea. There was no actual discussion in this thread anyway. – Asaf Karagila Oct 24 '12 at 18:34
Request reopening of math.stackexchange.com/questions/233353/… – Gerry Myerson Nov 9 '12 at 4:57
Aaaargh! Come on, software, give me a break! It says, "Please post general requests for reopen votes as answers below." Well, that's exactly what I did, and you decided my answer was "trivial", and converted it to a comment. Don't do that! – Gerry Myerson Nov 9 '12 at 4:59
@Gerry: This new development seems to be another one of those "features" that serves sites like SO well, but is an unalloyed nuisance here... yecch. – J. M. Nov 9 '12 at 12:07
@Gerry: The solution would be to add a few words, I suppose. For example why it should be reopened. – Asaf Karagila Nov 9 '12 at 12:16
1  
@Asaf, I opted for cursing the darkness rather than lighting a candle. Anyway, the question has been reopened. – Gerry Myerson Nov 9 '12 at 21:54
2  
@Gerry: Darkness is just the light's way of proving the empty set exists. – Asaf Karagila Nov 9 '12 at 21:55
1  
@Willie: I think that we should delete old reopening requests and perhaps have one post/additional thread for indexing them. I should also think that any request older than $n$ days for some reasonable $n$ should be deleted. If something has not been reopened and the initial votes expired... well, it makes sense to conclude that there aren't that many people interested in reopening. – Asaf Karagila Nov 30 '12 at 9:49
1  
@Willie It's probably useful to have some nontrivial history remain so that folks $\rm < 10K$ can gain some idea about what types of questions do get reopened, and what types don't. By quickly scanning the requests it might help to convey some idea of the community consensus on marginal topics. To keep the unopened requests at the top of the active sort, they could easily be bumped if there is still interest. – Gone Dec 1 '12 at 1:44
1  
@Belgi: This is why I prefer to browse Meta with answers sorted by activity. – Rahul Narain Jan 5 at 21:38
1  
@Belgi Sorting by activity solves the problem. I just bumped the only active discussion to the top with an edit. There are two requests dated by November 2012, which I guess are no longer ongoing conversations (but anyone so inclined can bump them; it's a CW). – user53153 Jan 5 at 22:07
1  
Thanks for the workaround, I still think theres no reasons for this to log all reopen request that were/will be made – Belgi Jan 5 at 22:10
show 5 more comments

28 Answers

up vote 2 down vote

[REOPENED] The question How to define a well-order on $\mathbb R$? were closed recently due to the confusing nature of the word "define".

If by "define" we wish to mean "explicitly describe without any appeal to the axiom of choice" then it is indeed a duplicate. However as the comments clarify, this is not the case.

I believe, if so, that it is not a duplicate of the question it was closed as a duplicate of (or any of the questions in the links in the comments I posted, as well).

Thank you Andres Caicedo, rschwieb, Belgi, Matt Pressland.

share
1  
That depends on what your definition of is is. – Graphth Oct 26 '12 at 15:57
1  
@Graphth: The answer on that depends on what is your definition of definition. – Asaf Karagila Oct 26 '12 at 15:58
up vote 0 down vote

[REOPENED] I would like to see

Properties of the number 50

reopens.

With $13$ upvotes it is clear that there are members of th comunity that find it to be interesting, and I recall such a question here (that asked for integrals and etc' with the value being someones age was not closed).

share
2  
Compare the two questions though: Answers to "integrals that evaluate to 59" are interesting maths puzzles. Answers to "what's interesting about 50" are trivia (to illustrate, the top-ranked answer at the moment is on Wikipedia). – Douglas S. Stones Oct 31 '12 at 10:21
2  
I definitely think that such questions should be closed. By leaving it open, you are setting a standard which allows for any such question with $50$ replaced by any other number. It is too localized. Think of the extreme case. I would not want $200$ different questions on this site each regarding what is interesting about some different integer. There is no mathematical content there. Upvotes do not constitute a valid reason for reopening. One of the more upvoted threads on MO is about jokes, which is off topic despite being voted up. – Eric Naslund♦ Nov 15 '12 at 15:39
up vote 1 down vote

[REOPENED. I cast the binding fourth vote on behalf of myself and Bill Dubuque]

This question: Prove $f(S \cap T) \subseteq f(S) \cap f(T)$ was voted to be closed as a duplicate of Is this a valid proof of $f(S \cap T) \subseteq f(S) \cap f(T)$?

However, the question asked actually was different. The latter asks for the readers to check whether the OP gave a valid proof (he didn't, and counterexamples were given as answers). The former asks for a proof. The closest answer we have on the latter to this question is this sketch of a proof. So I don't really think the two are exact duplicates of each other.

(The other proposed duplicate target is a mistake, as noted in the comments.)

share
1  
I agree, since your vote and mine bring the count to 5, you should feel welcome to reopen it. – Gone Nov 6 '12 at 14:33
up vote 1 down vote

[REOPENED] I would like the following: is $0.\overline{99}$ the same as $\lim_{x \to 1} x$?

to be reopened. The question is currently closed as a duplicate of Does .99999... = 1?.

While I agree that at the base is indeed that $0.\overline{9}$ = 1, but the OP actually says that he/she knows the proof of this. It seems like the question is more about the confusion about the function that is introduced in the question. While the question might not be worded perfectly, I don't think that it should be closed.

share
up vote 3 down vote

[REOPENED] Show that floating point sqrt(x*x) >= x for all long x.

I would like to see this question reopened. I believe it is a valid numerical analysis question.

share
See also this question about the closure of the above question. – Gone Nov 18 '12 at 0:10
up vote 2 down vote

[REOPENED] I would like to see the question on "mathematics in the movies" reopened. It asks about feature films depicting math, and/or mathematicians. I think it is at least as relevant to math, and this site, as are many other "soft questions" that still stand as open. After all, we DO have tags "math history", "education", "big-list", etc.. If questions relevant to those tags are thereby subject to closure, then the tags should be removed from this site; else, they are appropriate topics on which to post.

If reopened, I think it might very well be appropriate to "wikify" the post (community wiki), but this question has merit.

ADDED, to answer Marvis's comment below: This post is not a "strict subset" of the post to which Marvis provides a link. They are sufficiently different posts to warrant separate consideration. (See for example, Rahul's reply to Marvis).

share
I adjusted the link to direct to the question rather than to your answer, this is more fitting to the thread, and makes it easier to reopen/comment/etc. on the actual question. – Asaf Karagila Nov 22 '12 at 16:50
Thank you, @Asaf (When trying to access the question, I clicked on my answer from my user page, scrolled up, copied and pasted the link - I intended to link directly to the Question!) – amWhy Nov 22 '12 at 16:52
4  
I would like the part about "what kind of stories would you like to see in the future" removed as it is discussiony and off-topic. I said that in my comment on the question, but the asker chose to ignore it and freak out instead. – Rahul Narain Nov 22 '12 at 17:50
1  
I believe that this question is a strict subset of math.stackexchange.com/questions/18843/… – user17762 Nov 22 '12 at 20:28
1  
@Marvis: It seems to me the questions are split along fiction/nonfiction lines. – Rahul Narain Nov 22 '12 at 22:42
@Will Yes, rep is nice. But I already made my answer CW. My request to re-open was more about opening the question, not about gaining rep. I just thought there was a conflict of interest, in having drawn attention to a question I happened to answer. – amWhy Nov 23 '12 at 0:22
1  
points to comment that has been ignored yet again – Rahul Narain Nov 23 '12 at 20:10
up vote 3 down vote

[REOPENED] I would like this question:

Field Extensions of cos and sin

to be reopened. The question was closed as a duplicate of Degree of field extension. Bit IMO, the questions are different. The closed one is about whether a specific proof is correct, not just a question about how to prove it (like the other question).

share
up vote 0 down vote

I am attempting to have the following reopened- it is not a duplicate as is evident. Card game-ordering a deck

share
2  
However, it does bear more than a passing resemblance to Problem 9 of the ongoing competition at mit.edu/primes/materials/2013/entproUSA13.pdf – Gerry Myerson Nov 26 '12 at 1:25
2  
@Layla Patil: If you want it reopened you should react to others' comments. – Phira Nov 30 '12 at 11:03
up vote 0 down vote

[REOPENED] I would like Covariant derivative on hypersurface in $\mathbb{R}^n$ reopened. It was closed as duplicate but I don't think the answer in the question it's supposedly a duplicate of answers all of the interesting questions the OP has raised.

share
2  
I've re-opened. Since the original close vote was unilateral by a mod, I think it is okay to re-open unilaterally too. – Willie Wong♦ Nov 30 '12 at 9:48
up vote 1 down vote

I propose that we should reopen this question question, and posted my reason in the comments.

It was closed as an exact duplicate of a thread asking how to evaluate a Gaussian integral. But actually, the question was why, when one converts from Cartesian to polar coordinates, $dx\,dy$ gets replaced by $r\,dr\,d\theta$. That's not what the other question was about. There are other ways to evaluate the Gaussian integral than by polar coordinates, and those other ways would be appropriate answers to that older question, but not to this one. In some ways, the presence of a Gaussian integral in this question is incidental. It was really only the particular occasion for the question about polar coordinates.

share
It is actually a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/questions/37044/… – Andres Caicedo Nov 30 '12 at 1:55
up vote 1 down vote

[MIGRATED] I would like to see What are the chances my wife has lupus? reopened.

  • The stated reason for the closure ("not constructive") does not apply. There were answers, and they were supported by facts. The question did not solicit debate or arguments. There was a meta-debate, but it was about the appropriateness of the question, not its content; considering such a debate as a reason for closure would be circular, as one could then get questions closed simply by starting a debate on whether they should be closed. Nor is there any reason to expect that the question will solicit debate or arguments in the future. The question does fit our Q&A format; a question was posed and answers were given; that the answers were of the form "the question can't be answered because there's not enough information" is quite a common occurrence and not a reason for closure.
  • The stated reason for the closure bears no relationship to the reasons for closure given in the comments. The reasons given in the comment are not valid reasons for closure. Personal opinions on whether the OP should or shouldn't try to assess the chances of his wife having a serious disease by asking a question on a math Q&A site shouldn't enter into the decision whether this question is suitable for this site. It's the OP's decision and not ours whether he wants to ask this question here.
  • There were two answers at the time of closure, which had several upvotes and contained information potentially valuable to the OP. Even those who commented on problematic aspects of asking such a question on such a site can hopefully agree that it's good if the OP knows that there's not enough information in his question to answer the question.
  • I don't know the current status of the close vote cancelling policy proposal; it may or may not be relevant that I cast a no-close vote in a comment, no-one cancelled it and it received three upvotes.
share
If you have a homework problem, you post it on m.se; if you have a life-or-death problem, you don't spend your time m.se, you hire a professional. That's the advice this person needs, and it can be given as a comment; there's no need for an answer. I don't want to think about the consequences for m.se should someone, in good faith, give a misleading answer which causes some real harm. – Gerry Myerson Dec 11 '12 at 12:33
1  
@Gerry: My main point is that this is for the OP to decide, not for us. It seems that you and others disagree (though I don't think any argument against that principle has been offered yet), so I'll argue on the merits even though I think we shouldn't: Many questions are life or death questions. If someone posts a question on how to optimize a process and save the government a lot of money, that money can be invested in better hospitals or safer roads instead; yet no-one would claim we shouldn't be giving mathematical advice on that optimization. – joriki Dec 11 '12 at 12:51
1  
This question is more directly related to life and death, about as directly as the present question. It has $150$ upvotes, no close votes and $17$ answers, one with $48$ upvotes. Should it be closed? If not, where is the difference? – joriki Dec 11 '12 at 12:52
joriki, the difference is that the programmer asking about ambulance schedules has some ability, however untrained, to translate correct mathematical observations to working code, and to discard that code if it fails simulation tests. This poor guy, whom I now believe to be legitimate, has no evident ability to correctly formulate his problem, nor to translate an answer into a better choice for his wife. His demands for a short and simple "answer" demonstrate that much. – Will Jagy Dec 11 '12 at 21:45
I left a comment for Michael Hardy. He can cast the final vote to re-open and post an answer, if he sees some purpose to that. His Ph.D. is in statistics, although that does not guarantee he has tables of useful percentages in epidemiology. – Will Jagy Dec 11 '12 at 22:08
For what it's worth, if "someone posts a question on how to optimize a process and save the government a lot of money," I would tell her to go away to hire a consultant. – Gerry Myerson Dec 11 '12 at 23:54
1  
The question was migrated to stats.stackexchange.com/questions/45807/… For the moment, there is also my question stats.stackexchange.com/questions/45804/… with an excellent answer by an epidemiology guy, but the two questions will probably be folded together. – Will Jagy Dec 13 '12 at 0:35
As Will noted, the question has been migrated. Should we edit this answer to include a note to that effect? – Willie Wong♦ Jan 4 at 15:46
@Gerry: Yes, you might tell her to go away to hire a consultant, but you wouldn't vote for the question to be closed (and certainly not as "not constructive"). Of course you don't have to do unpaid work in such a case if you don't want to, and perhaps no-one wants to and then the question remains unanswered; but this entire site is about doing unpaid work for people, and such a question would be perfectly legitimate here. – joriki Jan 6 at 8:18
1  
@joriki, I don't mind doing unpaid work to help people learn mathematics. I do mind doing unpaid work to help people in private money-making enterprises. If they are going to make, or save, some money out of it, they should be willing to pay someone to help them. – Gerry Myerson Jan 6 at 15:19
up vote 1 down vote

[REOPENED]The question A question about a series with a strange property? should be re-opened. As the OP remarked the supposed duplicate does not actually answer the question posed.

(More details: the supposed duplicate has two questions in it. One without sign restrictions. The other restricting to positive series. An answer was given and accepted for the latter. But no answer was given for the former. The new question explicitly asks for the former.)

share
up vote 1 down vote

[REOPENED] I would like to see this post reopened.

It is clear that it generated a lot of thought about relations, their properties, etc. Many questions of this nature are posted to this site, and are not closed as "non-constructive." Many students are very interested in "real-life" applications/interpretations of the math they are learning. ${}$

share
2  
I don't think this post should be re-opened, although I agree that "non-constructive" might be off-putting. I think that the question generated a lot of buzz, which is good, but when you have several repeated answers and deletions it's time to close down. If we had "no longer relevant" as a closing reason I would vote that. – Asaf Karagila Jan 5 at 14:09
@Asaf I'd suggest protecting the question, if reopened. I do understand your point, and I think if the closure reason could be customized by a moderator to indicate what you suggest, I'd be okay with that. – amWhy Jan 5 at 14:12
I agree and have also voted to reopen. I think protecting the question is more appropriate. – TMM Jan 5 at 19:31
I have to say that I also agree with Asaf. "non-constructive" portrays an inaccurate perspective on what is being meant; it is clear that the question is simply no longer relevant. Although, there's a possibility that a user could input a very interesting answer and I am not entirely sure why this should not occur. I do not fully understand the things between the lines of the FAQ and rules of the site, though! I have not voted to reopen as I do not fully comprehend the critique of those who voted to close and I'd rather not step on any toes. – 000 Jan 5 at 19:42
up vote 1 down vote

[REOPENED] This question about a set containing itself was closed as "not a real question", with both posted answers interpreting it as a tautology that $X \subseteq X$. However, the question is really about the paradox $X \in X$; the word contains can have another meaning as $\ni$, and the question actually mentions the axiom of regularity! Granted, it's not a great question, and is easily resolved by prodding the asker about the definition of set complement, but that doesn't make it "not a real question".

share
up vote -3 down vote

Is there a difference between all and every? was just closed with the reason "It's difficult to tell what is being asked here." That's true, it was rather difficult to tell what was being asked there, but I'd just figured it out based on the OP's comments and was in the process of writing an answer that I believe would have cleared things up, when the question was closed.

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

share
2  
But the OP is not some new user. It's a well known persona. – Asaf Karagila Jan 17 at 10:05
1  
@Asaf: Looking at the OP's history, it appears to me that some of his other questions suffered the same fate: They were closed because he's seriously confused about some issues and has a somewhat haughty attitude and a tendency to find fault in mathematics at large rather than himself. I don't, however, see many in-depth attempts to clear up those confusions. Are you implying that the OP has shown bad faith, or at least behaviour that should be sanctioned? If so, where? – joriki Jan 17 at 10:13
2  
But those are the ones which were not deleted. Furthermore, the OP had several accounts (in part to mask his identity and in part to answer and spread "propaganda" (for the lack of a better term) against ZFC). Some of these accounts were removed and some merged, and so there are questions which are not owned by any user. Going even further the OP is a well-known internet persona from the days of USENET. – Asaf Karagila Jan 17 at 10:20
I will add that I have no problem with anyone asking a reasonably phrased question; and I am willing to give the latitude to new users which ask bad questions. I am not willing to accept bad questions from people which have a known history of asking bad questions for the sake of steering arguments. – Asaf Karagila Jan 17 at 10:23
1  
@Asaf: Thanks for the explanation. This doesn't seem like an optimal way to deal with this sort of problem to me; I'll think about that and perhaps post a separate meta question. – joriki Jan 17 at 10:24
That would be good. There is already a meta thread about dealing with cranks, you may want to start there. – Asaf Karagila Jan 17 at 10:25
1  
I suggest you read Wolfgang's recent comment to my answer on his recent question (which were so-so, but reasonable). This should give you an idea about the agenda of Mr. Mueckenheim. – Asaf Karagila Jan 17 at 11:30
6  
A known crank/troll deservedly gets very little sympathy. – Jyrki Lahtonen Jan 17 at 11:39
2  
joriki, you can see WM's recent activity and read some of his comments... after some discussion he begins to show his true agenda. – Asaf Karagila Jan 17 at 21:40
up vote 1 down vote

[REOPENED] Please reopen From a mathematician's point of view, what is the purpose of '$dx$' in $\int f(x)\ dx$?. I had written out (what I thought of as) a nice answer, then just before trying to post it, it was closed as a duplicate of What is $dx$ in integration?.

However, this question is different since it deals with the difference in the way physicists and mathematicians understand $dx$ (something that my answer was going to address).

share
@AsafKaragila: Yes, thank you. – Thomas Jan 19 at 17:07
up vote -1 down vote

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

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

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

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

I am trying to get

Let $G$ be a finite abelian group. Let $a\in G$ be an element of maximal order. Prove $|b|$ divides $|a|$ for all $b\in G. A\: different \: proof\: $

reopened. It was closed as a duplicate of Prove that for any element $b$, $|b|$ divides $|a|$ (order of $b$ divides order of $a$). and Finite abelian group generated by elements of maximal order. True the question has been answered, but I haven been given another outline of a proof for this and would really appreciate it if i could get some feedback on this version of the proof for this question

share
up vote -5 down vote

Taking the AMC 12 this week

I see no reason at all why "this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling or extended discussion" of any unhealthy kind (or at all).

share
2  
The case to close the question is practically open-and-shut if you go by the criteria in the FAQ, rather than by the summary text taken from the limited selection of options for close votes. – Hurkyl Feb 4 at 4:40
@Hurkyl, the FAQ lists some positive criteria that support this question, and some negative criteria that either do not apply, or would have to be interpreted overly broadly to make them apply. – zyx Feb 4 at 7:50
up vote 0 down vote

[REOPENED] This question has 3 votes to close as being an exact duplicate of this one, though both are completely different questions. Kindly pause and check if the two questions are really duplicate of each other, before voting to close them as duplicates.

share
up vote 0 down vote

[Re-opened] I voted to close How to create a function using the following? because it was very badly presented, and it got closed. OP has improved the question to the point where I think it can be answered, so I have voted to reopen.

share
up vote 3 down vote

[Re-opened] I'd like to suggest reopening What is importance of the Bunyakovsky conjecture?. The question in the body, "how important do you consider the answer to this problem", may well be "too soft", but the question in the title seems to me to be a solid mathematical question.

share
1  
I cast the fifth and final vote. – Willie Wong♦ Mar 13 at 12:32
up vote 0 down vote

[REOPENED] probability and permutation and combination looks no worse than a lot of questions on the site, and leads to some interesting mathematics (as per the answer I posted before the question was closed). Please consider voting to reopen.

share
1  
It should be noted that although there are claims that it is from an exam, it is from $5$ months ago, so the exam claim is no longer relevant. – user1729 Mar 13 at 13:32
1  
@user1729 There is a single claim: "It certainly appears to be asked on a cell phone for a multiple-choice exam". But I see not a shred of evidence to support that claim. It appears to be extreme speculation. – Math Gems Mar 13 at 15:23
1  
There's really nothing wrong with this question. I voted to reopen. – MJD Mar 13 at 17:01
5  
You do not count the authors first comment as at least a shred of evidence? – user1729 Mar 13 at 17:13
2  
Shred of evidence: please i need this question answer urgently,the answer are given 7!,3120,4080,0............please help me out. – Did Mar 13 at 19:24
3  
Currently two votes to reopen ... and two votes to delete. Please, let's not argue about the strength of the evidence that it's an exam question --- as already noted, that's no longer relevant. – Gerry Myerson Mar 14 at 0:18
Now up to 4/5 to reopen, and 2/3 to delete. A race to the finish! – Gerry Myerson Mar 17 at 23:58
up vote 4 down vote

I would like to request Motivation for the Tensor Product be reopened as I do not think it is a duplicate of and Motivation for Tensor Product.

The latter question asks "We already have Direct Product, Semi-direct products, so after all why do we need Tensor Product?", which is a question about why multilinearity is in general useful.

The former question (which was closed as a duplicate) asks "What's the reason/motivation to define the tensor product using the free vector space and that quotient to impose linearity? Can someone point me out the motivation for that definition?". These are questions about the specific construction of the tensor prodct, and NOT the general usefulness of multilinearity properties.

share
1  
I think one thing that would help is if the two questions are edited to they have more precise and more distinct (from each other) titles. – Willie Wong♦ Mar 18 at 12:16
up vote 1 down vote

[RECLOSED] How are arrays defined with GAP?

I really hope we can get past this anti-computer attitude. If you don't want to do computational mathematics, that's fine, but please don't obstruct the participants who do. Just ignore the tags if you don't like the questions.

"We welcome questions about: ... Software that mathematicians use" - FAQ.

It's a reasonable question and the current answer lists only one way to create arrays in GAP. There is still more to be learned.

For the same reason, I voted these to be reopened:

How do I break MAGMA?

and

[REOPENED] How does the function CycleIndex work in GAP? ( undocumented in GAP )

share
Please be sure to follow your thread and update if the post has been reopened. – Asaf Karagila 2 days ago
up vote 1 down vote

[REOPENED] In this question, the OP has edited to point out why the question isn't a duplicate. Please reopen.

share
up vote 0 down vote

[REOPENED] I would like to see How to prove the earning decomposition of 2 people in mediocristan and extremistan? reopened. Please note that a highly reputed user has added a comment saying: "I would like to reopen and answer."

share
up vote -2 down vote

[REOPENED]

Reciprocal sum equal to $1$

The above is not a duplicate of Unusual 5th grade problem, how to solve it

The problem wants to find the minimum solution of an objective, subject to a constraint.

share
I voted to close under "Not constructive". My belief that the visible reason to close should fit is less strong than my belief that this question should be closed. – The Chaz 2.0 5 hours ago
1  
@TheChaz2.0 Ok. Then I think the entire site should be closed as "Not constructive". – user17762 5 hours ago

You must log in to answer this question.

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