The best way to ask check-my-proof questions is not to simply ask users to check your proof. In what follows I've been strongly influenced by Raphael's answer on meta.cs.SE, and somewhat echo Qiaochu Yuan's answer to a previous meta.math.SE question.
Questions of the form
I have to prove that if ${D_{M,K}}$ is a universal factor, then $\Psi \le-1$. Here's my attempted proof.
We begin by considering a simple special case. Of course, $\tilde{\mathbf{{c}}} > \sqrt{2}$. Therefore if $d$ is not equivalent to $R$ then $N$ is greater than ${\mathfrak{{l}}^{(\mathfrak{{p}})}}$. Next, if $\mathbf{{x}}$ is less than $\Phi$ then $x < P$. Because $e \cong \overline{{\mathbf{{w}}^{(\zeta)}}}$ if $k$ is larger than $\mathcal{{D}}$ then $| \pi' | > \emptyset$. By Thompson's Theorem, if the Riemann hypothesis holds then $\bar{\lambda} \subset 1$. On the other hand, if $\mathscr{{E}}''$ is co-essentially Archimedes and local then $b < \hat{y}$. Hence if $K''$ is singular and real then every uncountable, Frobenius, non-universally quasi-intrinsic function is $X$-Hausdorff and connected. On the other hand, if $\bar{\kappa}$ is distinct from $K$ then $$H'' \left( \mathbf{{x}}, \dots, \Gamma \right) > \limsup_{K \to e} \int_{2}^{\infty} \tanh \left( e i \right) \,d {\mathcal{{M}}^{(Y)}}.$$
QED.
Is this correct? Any suggestions to improve? Thanks!
are often bad in part because in the cases that it turns out that the proof is correct, we are left with either a
Yes, it looks good to me.
answer, or perhaps we start nitpicking minor (and essentially non-mathematical) deatils (e.g., "there should be a comma between '$e \cong \overline{{\mathbf{{w}}^{(\zeta)}}}$' and 'if' in the fifth sentence.") Neither of these leave us with good answers.
Also, such questions aren't really focused, and it is uncertain what the user's specific mathematical question is (or if they even have one).
Note, too, that we generally dislike questions asking us to verify "proofs" of long-standing open problems, or which purport to disprove standard theorems. Why should such proof-verification questions be treated differently?
Compare the above with the following question:
I have to prove that if ${D_{M,K}}$ is a universal factor, then $\Psi \le-1$. Here's my attempted proof.
We begin by considering a simple special case. Of course, $\tilde{\mathbf{{c}}} > \sqrt{2}$. Therefore if $d$ is not equivalent to $R$ then $N$ is greater than ${\mathfrak{{l}}^{(\mathfrak{{p}})}}$. Next, if $\mathbf{{x}}$ is less than $\Phi$ then $x < P$. Because $e \cong \overline{{\mathbf{{w}}^{(\zeta)}}}$, if $k$ is larger than $\mathcal{{D}}$ then $| \pi' | > \emptyset$. By Thompson's Theorem, if the Riemann hypothesis holds then $\bar{\lambda} \subset 1$. On the other hand, if $\mathscr{{E}}''$ is co-essentially Archimedes and local then $b < \hat{y}$. Hence if $K''$ is singular and real then every uncountable, Frobenius, non-universally quasi-intrinsic function is $X$-Hausdorff and connected. On the other hand, if $\bar{\kappa}$ is distinct from $K$ then $$H'' \left( \mathbf{{x}}, \dots, \Gamma \right) > \limsup_{K \to e} \int_{2}^{\infty} \tanh \left( e i \right) \,d {\mathcal{{M}}^{(Y)}}.$$
QED.
I am uncertain about my use of Thompson's Theorem. Is it applicable in this case? Thanks!
Sure, a very poor (and essentially not-an-answer) answer can still be "Yes," but even better is
Yes. Recall that to use Thompson's Theorem we need.... Since....
Similarly, in the "No" case answers should include an explanation about why it is not applicable.
But beyond that we have a specific mathematical question: the applicability of a certain theorem in a certain case. Even better, many of our veteran users should be able to pare down the attempted proof to its essential elements to leave a concise, specific and searchable question. (Yeah, this is more work for us, but it improves the site.)
tl;dr
From Raphael's meta.cs.SE answer:
If a questioner wants their work checked, they should be able to pinpoint their doubt and [provide] a question that allows meaty answers either way (i.e. for "yes" and "no" answers).
