I have no idea why this question should be put on hold. Please let me know the reason. Otherwise I cannot improve it.
EDIT(Nov. 12, 2013) I rephrased Remark to make it shorter and clearer. And I changed the spoiler to My method and made it visible.
I have no idea why this question should be put on hold. Please let me know the reason. Otherwise I cannot improve it.
EDIT(Nov. 12, 2013) I rephrased Remark to make it shorter and clearer. And I changed the spoiler to My method and made it visible.
I am sad to say that reading this discussion left me no other logical alternative but to vote to close the question that initiated this round of exchanges.
The way I see it Makoto Kato's modus operandi is to repeatedly plea to that blog post by Joel Spolsky for justification of his actions. Furthermore he is continuously asking downvoters to explain what exactly should be corrected in the questions for them to be acceptable. The problem with that is that the need to define a function (one returning a Yes/No answer in response to a text to be posted), or a binding list of criteria for acceptability, should not arise in the first place. Even though this is a programming/math site, we cannot rely on such definitions alone on matters of judgement. I'm not the first to quote justice Stewart here, but if courts of law are unwilling to give a precise definition, and use the principle I know it when I see it when judging a case, then I don't think that we should be bothered either.
Because of this wider context I am unwilling to judge this post on its own merits alone, moderator's pleas notwithstanding. Does that form an ad hominem -attack? Possibly? I'm not good at critically studying my subconscious. But I know that the members enraged by Makoto's antics are intelligent and knowledgable people. They know history of ancient Athens, and are aware of what may go wrong, if we start ostracizing people indiscriminately.
Note that similar attempts at blogging on MSE (by others!) have been shot down in the past by the community.
Closings, downvotes and suspensions are not necessarily rational processes on the main site and even less so on the meta. I have never downvoted or close-voted any of your material, may have upvoted some of it, do not believe that negative votes on the main site are useful, and don't agree with the generalized idea of "not using SE as a blog". I also considered your recent suspension, like most of the other suspensions noticed on meta, to be ridiculous.
Having said that: the style of your recent postings is awful no matter who posts them, the rate of posting, or the possible use of MSE as a blog.
they are much longer than needed to state the question using standard words
they contain huge amounts of meta comments in the postings, about your intentions, interests, or justification for posting the question. This is useless and destroys readability. Descriptions of yourself belong in the user profile, not the question.
unnecessary comments about the relations to some deep and important theory sound like promotion of the question.
there are no published sources given as evidence that the statements in the question are correct or were ever considered interesting.
it is therefore unclear if the question is correct or interesting. Very few people will be interested in checking your proofs to guess whether the statement is correct. The SE technology is not designed to operate as a personal tutorial site that interactively debugs posters' "work and effort".
you ask for intellectually limited answers by requesting elementary and complete proofs.
there are hints and spoiler space in the question. This belongs only in an answer containing your solutions, hints, or other writings.
the links that create dependency on a cloud of other questions. Nobody is interested in tracing through a forest of other postings that (for the above reasons) might be nothing more than a narration of your intuitions instead of a body of known theory. Maybe it is all correct, or maybe not, but nobody is going to spend the time to decide which is the case.
There are other problems [edit: such as using identical, cut-and-paste boilerplate text in many different postings, which can be considered a form of spam] but that should give a sufficient idea.
I do think there is a group of people who automatically downvote and close-vote your postings on both sites. Re-working the questions in fear of suspensions and close votes, by adding extra material (such as "context, effort and motivation") is only making these questions worse.
[they contain huge amounts of meta comments in the postings, about your intentions, interests, or justification for posting the question. This is useless and destroys readability. Descriptions of yourself belong in the user profile, not the question.]
I used to ask questions without writing those. Some people downvoted for them or voted to close them because thay think they lack context. I didn't much care. However, recently a new rule that a question lacking context or effort should be closed was introduced. So I began to write context, motivation, etc.
$\endgroup$
– Makoto Kato
Nov 12 '13 at 4:26
[But what you are adding isn't "context" as I understand it]
Isn't providing outline of the proof enough?
$\endgroup$
– Makoto Kato
Nov 13 '13 at 18:45