Timeline for How to answer proof-verification questions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 19, 2018 at 7:28 | comment | added | quid Mod | Here is one within a minute or two. | |
| Oct 9, 2018 at 19:33 | comment | added | quid Mod | Beyond these technicalities a main issue I have is with the "when the question has been there for some time"; your example is 3+ years old so I'll grant that's clearly a long time; yet just today I saw examples posted within a day however. If such answers are given sometimes they'll become more popular over time; the delay-condition will not be understood. | |
| Oct 9, 2018 at 19:29 | comment | added | quid Mod | Any close reason can be recorded as "other." We also don't have a policy that allows such answers. Also if no one upvotes or accepts the answer it does not achieve the goal of getting it of the unanswered list. | |
| Oct 9, 2018 at 19:26 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @quid: I don't think we currently have a closure reason that fits these questions. Also, posting a CW answer can be done by a single user, closing the question is a more involved process. | |
| Oct 9, 2018 at 17:07 | comment | added | quid Mod | It's not very clear then why you proposal goes into the direction of having them answered then. I mean you could also propose closure. | |
| Oct 9, 2018 at 10:52 | comment | added | Carl Mummert | @Henning I agree, I had already upvoted this suggestion. | |
| Oct 9, 2018 at 2:30 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @CarlMummert: I don't disagree about that -- but as long as we do have them I don't see any value in keeping them artificially neither-closed-nor-answered. | |
| Oct 8, 2018 at 21:41 | comment | added | Carl Mummert | IMHO losing most proof verification questions would not be a bad thing - they are asked in good faith but are not really questions about mathematics, in the usual way they are posed. | |
| Oct 8, 2018 at 21:40 | comment | added | quid Mod | @Carl what I'd propose is stripping it out of the question, yes. There could be a not somewhere "this was initially asked as a proof verification." If the post in the modified form is not worth it, another solution would be to removed the thing entirely. | |
| Oct 8, 2018 at 21:23 | comment | added | Carl Mummert | @quid: so the proof itself is the answer to the question whether the proof is correct? Stripping the proof out of the question seems to completely change the meaning of the question. But this is why I think that these questions should be discouraged in the first place, or that we should prompt the asker to be more specific. "Is this proof correct?" What part are you unsure about? What makes you think it might not be correct? If the OP adds that info, we can write more informative answers. | |
| Oct 8, 2018 at 19:42 | comment | added | quid Mod | I think there are better ways to handle this. One could encourage OP to turn the proof-verification question into a self-answered question. If OP is not around anymore somebody else could do it; if the proof is so flawless that there is nothing to say, it's just a copy-paste. (That this happened could be briefly documented.) | |
| Oct 8, 2018 at 13:18 | history | answered | hmakholm left over Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |