closehttp://math.stackexchange.com/q/796812/23353 (asks about implementation of algorithm, not the algorithm itself)

[ SmokeDetector ] All-caps title: COMBINATIONS OF MEASURABLE FUNCTIONS by Roaa murdy on math.stackexchange.com

close Surprising applications of topology Textbook "too broad". I already mod-closed it once, and I don't feel like doing it twice back-to-back.

It seems that among users who voted to reopen were some high-rep users. See revision history and review.

I know that it should not matter too much who voted, but still I view somewhat differently votes by experienced users, who spent some amount of time at the site and know (at least in theory) quite a lot about how the site works.

As much as I'd like to see great answers to this question, it's both too broad and opinion-based. What does "surprising" mean? The answer about Borsuk-Ulam doesn't look very "surprising" IMO.

Given the two related questions I already posted I highly doubt there will be completely new answers that weren't already posted there, or could be posted there.

Since this question was already closed, reopened and now closed again, I wonder whether it will get to review queue. I see it neither in history nor was I offered to review that particular closed vote.

i have a question can someone answer

close A plan to defeat a betting game where the odds of winning are 50/50. Help me understand why it's flawed. I'm sure it has already been asked before, but I can't find the duplicate...

@MartinSleziak So I was wrong - the question eventually got into the review queue.

@MartinSleziak So now that Daniel Fischer voted to close the question, is it too broad? I apologise if I overstepped my middling reputation to suggest that the question is too broad.

@ArthurFischer I did not intend to offend you in any way. (And you are of course right in saying that several high-rep users voted to close.)

Personally I have decided not to vote either way.

We certainly had lots of big-list questions in the past.

@NajibIdrissi If I understand that question correctly, it simply asks about martingale betting system. Or did I miss something?

Could maybe this or this be considered a duplicate?

@MartinSleziak Yes, that's basically it. I think your second link is a good duplicate target.

If this question is to remain open, I think it should be marked CW. I flagged for this earlier, but it was declined; probably because the mod taking care of the flag, Arthur, just closed it again.

@MikeMiller Actually, if you check your flag history the flag was marked helpful (ie., not declined). I just felt it was better off closed than CW. I'm not inclined to mark it CW. Maybe another mod will.

@ArthurFischer Sorry, I misspoke. Call it a thinko. I meant to say that it was marked helpful, but the mod taking care of the flag declined to mark the question as CW. Also, the last bit in that sentence should read 'just closed it instead'.

Clearly I need some coffee.

@MikeMiller No worries. I've asked if any other mod is willing to CW-ify that question (or close it) in the mod room. Or close it.

@MikeMiller I always need more coffee. :-)

I got a 1 pound bag of the stuff about 10 days ago. I seem to be almost out.

On the other hand, I share with a colleague, so I can just blame him.

Cue outraged meta thread about moderators unilaterally doing what they were elected for in 3... 2... 1...

Regarding the "Topo Applications" question: I had voted to "leave open" in the review queue to maintain consistency between other, older questions, like these: math.stackexchange.com/q/722168/23353, math.stackexchange.com/q/62565/23353 and the rest of the results on this search.

I think the question should be off-topic, but I don't know how to justify closing that one question, but not all the others.

The tag soft-question is even worse

We could just open up a site called popmath.SE and migrate 95% of the tag there </off-topic>

close Speaking of which: this is way to broad, is a shopping recommendation, and is probably a duplicate. Pick your poison. :)

"Duplicate" is probably the one that will generate the least amount of bickering.

@anorton Let's go ahead and close the other ones!

@MikeMiller But, but... there's so many gems in there! For example, "If you shoot $n$ pigeons with $m>n$ bullets, and never miss, there is at least one pigeon with more than one hole." Link

:P

I think some of the massively upvoted ones should be locked as "Preserved for historical significance, but no longer considered a good, on-topic question for this site."

Yes, good point. voted to close.

@anorton When I step on a rake, I try to remember and make sure I do it next day too, for the sake of consistency.

@NajibIdrissi The question is closed now. I'm removing your post from the starboard.

Primarily opinion based?

@Fundamental What does voting 'leave open' do, mechanically?

delete Are there any fundamental new discoveries in Algebraic Number Theory than in ‘traditional’ number theory ?

> But if enough people (currently 3) select "Do Not Close" within the review queue, the question will be immediately removed from the queue (not shown to any more reviewers) and the aging starts immediately. -- Shog9

(They renamed the button since then, but presumably this did not change the functionality)

@MikeMiller Voted too broad. "Why do people ask 'why' questions?" -- For reasons.