Over the past few days, I've noticed several proof verification questions regarding open problems. On one, quid left the comment:
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it asks for a review of a proof of a famous open problem.
There are some related posts on meta, but none of them directly address the question of what our policy on proof verification of open problems is, and I don't think the answer to that is self-evident.
The issue is primarily when the proofs are relatively long, like in this or this question. Such questions feel obtuse, in that an answerer will spend far more time understanding the question than in composing an answer - which means the question does not contribute to a Q&A, since anyone who stumbles upon the question would have to wade through it, and by the time they'd done that, they'd probably see the flaw.
On the other hand, questions like this present a very short proof, and I think there is value in having such questions, since they are easily understood, and the flaw in the proof is more widely applicable (i.e. not uncommon in other proofs we see here). A more borderline case is here - I chose to answer it because the mistakes are somewhat common and the length is manageable, although I can see an argument that it ought to be closed because the proof is poorly presented.
I don't think it would be wise to have a policy banning proof verifications asking about open problems, because they are, in spirit, within the realm of mathematics (i.e. can be effectively answered here) and not intrinsically different from the other questions of proof-verification - however, given that such questions often (but not always) include rambling proofs as a major part of their body, I think we need some clear policy on what to do with such problems, especially since the people asking such questions often ask multiple, and it would be thus wise to deal with their questions on a uniform basis.
What should we do with questions asking to examine a proof of unsolved problems?