-2
$\begingroup$

Can users post proofs here they think are valid for review? If the "posted proof" is valid, what happens to the proof?

Also it appears the TAG list allows for the posting of proofs for review (proof-verification and solution-verification). Yet... I posted a proof a few days ago and it got closed/deleted. But as the author I cannot view my deleted/removed post even though the policy here at Math.Stackexchange allows authors of deleted posted to view their removed posts. It got moved to chat, then got deleted.

What can I do to view my original post of my proof?

I understand why it got deleted/removed, I simply want the ability to view it.

$\endgroup$
13
  • $\begingroup$ If I understand correctly, a post or an answer on MSE cannot be moved to chat. For deleted question/answer, if it is deleted recently you can find it into your profile. $\endgroup$ Jan 10 at 0:00
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Did you delete and recreate the pEYEp account by any chance? If so, MSE counts it as a different user. $\endgroup$
    – dxiv
    Jan 10 at 0:07
  • $\begingroup$ @dxiv Yes... and that answers that! $\endgroup$
    – user1012858
    Jan 10 at 0:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This really depends on what you're trying to prove. The usual issues with questions seeking validation of proofs are (1) That the proof is of a "famous open" conjecture (and not a part of it : likely a part of it should anyway be acceptable) (2) The proof should not be too lengthy to be classified as broad. Usually something spanning a page (in PC mode) should be alright, while I can't say anything about something longer than that. These will likely be closed as "off-topic" and "broad" respectively. If your question has no issues, you can go ahead with the solution-verification tag. $\endgroup$ Jan 10 at 15:31
  • $\begingroup$ If someone finds that post, we can see what it contains and find how it can be refined , perhaps, to fit the site better. $\endgroup$ Jan 10 at 15:32
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ To be on-topic, a solution verification question should not be a broad question such as "is there any error in my (long) proof". Rather it should pose a question about a specific step in the proof, and should include remarks about why you have doubts about such. $\endgroup$ Jan 10 at 17:27
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Here is the most recent iteration of community discussion on use of solution-verification, which has some advice on how to try to fit such things to the site. $\endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jan 10 at 18:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Was the question about sums of two primes? $\endgroup$ Jan 10 at 18:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ But even solution-verification, requires your work. We are not here to evaluate a post "I found this proof somewhere, or I found this proof on this website; can you tell me if it is correct?" And if your own proof attempt has already been used to answer the question you are proving, then it can rightfully be closed as a duplicate. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Jan 10 at 18:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, @MartinS for the link. Please, everyone who can, please read the appropriate comments given below that question. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Jan 10 at 21:42
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque YES! I have a proof that is not long which I posted a few days a go and I realize an error in the proof which I'll fix. But I went further in the proof recently and have a question about a specific step. Thanks $\endgroup$
    – user1012858
    Jan 10 at 23:00
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak The link does not work for me. But yes that was the proof. The error is P1 should be N1 and P2 should be N2 where N1 and N2 are in the range 1 to (P-1). That's the fix. If the good people here at MSE would let me access my own post that would be nice... as I have an update. Thanks. $\endgroup$
    – user1012858
    Jan 10 at 23:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ For posterity, here is a screenshot of the question in its current state for you: i.stack.imgur.com/AVdWg.png $\endgroup$ Jan 11 at 6:58
2
$\begingroup$

As a part of your post you have asked: "What can I do to view my original post of my proof?"

Based on your comment, it seems that the question is: Every even number of the form (P+1) is the sum of two Primes? Goldbach Conjecture for evens of the form (P+1) The posts is still visible at this link to 10k+ users. (Of course, deleted posts are also visible to the post author - but in this case the account which posted the question was deleted.) Calvin Khor provide in a comment this helpful screenshot.

How you can see the question?

  • If a post is deleted, you can still view it if it is associated with your account (and you have a link). You could ask the moderators to merge the deleted account with your new account. (Or at least to add this specific question to your account.) However, I doubt that such thing is in fact possible - maybe somebody will be able to say more. This is what I found on Meta Stack Exchange: Can I link my account to one that I deleted?
  • At the moment, some version is visible in Google Cache. (But keep in mind that it won't be there forever.) See also:
  • For your convenience, I have copy-pasted the question here - so you can see the same text if you look at the first revision of this post.

Should something like this be posted on this site?

There were several discussions about posting attempted solutions of open problems here - the prevalent opinion seems to be that this is not really suitable. See also:

Maybe only tangentially related, but I will also add a link to this post on Academia Stack Exchange: I believe I have solved a famous open problem. How do I convince people in the field that I am not a crank?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. I'm working on the "fix" and will post it later on in the future. $\endgroup$
    – user1012858
    Jan 11 at 6:36
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @pEYEp You should probably reed the linked discussions. (The recommendation seems to be that if you decide to post it somewhere, this site is not suitable. If you want to discuss something like this here, perhaps you might try chat.) $\endgroup$ Jan 11 at 6:40
  • $\begingroup$ @pEYEp I am one of those who commented on your now-deleted post, with a critique that wasn't answered before the post got deleted. I can still see it (as do all 10k+ rep users) and I just re-read it. Sorry to say, but the line of your argument there does not look to be salvageable, and I don't see how you could possibly "fix" it, short of a complete rework. My advice would be to weigh any such rework carefully before posting it here or elsewhere, lest you risk having it summarily dismissed again. $\endgroup$
    – dxiv
    Jan 11 at 9:05
  • $\begingroup$ @dxiv understood. Someone said to post it on viXra? $\endgroup$
    – user1012858
    Jan 12 at 3:03
  • $\begingroup$ @pEYEp You could technically post to ViXra, since it is an open repository. Technically, you could have posted your now-deleted MSE "proof" to ViXra, too, but that alone wouldn't have made the math right, or the publication worthwhile. You should worry about the math, first and foremost, because posting faulty math anywhere is pointless. $\endgroup$
    – dxiv
    Jan 12 at 4:19

You must log in to answer this question.