Math Mods' Office - 2024-11-07

« first day (3579 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (105 days later) »

Dev_anon101

11:29

A user was abusive on the comments (the previous comments are deleted after closing) and apparently has ability to close a question, could the action please be reviewed?

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4995324/collatz-conjecture-convergence-proof

Soumik Mukherjee

11:47

@Dev_anon101 1) This site is not meant for proof checking and 2) your "proof" isn't correct. This post will probably get deleted soon.

Dev_anon101

12:00

I posted here so anyone can answer where I went wrong which is what everyone does, you wrote the same as that user your probably the same account

1 hour later…

Sine of the Time

13:11

@Dev_anon101 or he probably knows the guidelines of the site

Jakobian

14:02

@Dev_anon101 "you wrote the same as that user your probably the same account"

how exactly did you came to such conclusion

Dev_anon101

14:52

I remember what was said (which matches word for word except the deleted part), it seems, the comments get's deleted after closing but I obviously can recall what I replied to

Jakobian

I can assert you that Shaun and Soumik are in fact, not the same person

If they have said similar sounding things, that's most likely because you broke some of the policies of this site

or well, "broke", didn't follow them

I can't say if Shaun was being abusive, as I can't check that. However, I remain doubtful that he was

He is in fact, a moderator of this site

@Dev_anon101 as for this, you should check the tag-wiki for the solution-verification tag

note that even without the solution-verification tag, the things said in this wiki still apply

even though the majority is either unaware or neglectful to acknowledge this, its still not a site meant for proof checking

Dev_anon101

15:21

"I can assert you that Shaun and Soumik are in fact, not the same person"

Ok fair enough my assumption was simply based on response being word for word the same

Nope he said somewhere around the line of I won't read it because previous mathematicians have shown it is not possible, For which I simply replied that the response is not academic to say you won't look because of the past. If I knew he would delete both comments then I would have taken a screenshot but I am sure you can always see what was written even if it is not visible to users which is why I am asking moderators

If that is the case then I sure hope the decision of deletion is not made by one moderator, to delete and saying "I won't change because of the past" is absurd response by someone who controls the board

Sine of the Time

Only mods can see deleted comments afaik

Xander Henderson

@SineoftheTime That is correct.

@Dev_anon101 No one was being abusive in the comments. At worst, people were being blunt.

But you need to understand that Math SE is not meant to publicize new results, nor to check every random person's incorrect attempt to resolve some long-standing open problem. Your question is not on-topic, and the deleted comments were pointing this out. They could have been nicer, but they were not abusive.

Dev_anon101

15:42

Ok fair enough but how is he justified by saying "I won't change because of the past", it may not be used to publicize but you can ask how to do something or how was something wrong which I have used the exchange for.

1 hour later…

Xander Henderson

16:55

@Dev_anon101 I don't understand your question.

Dev_anon101

@XanderHenderson he said something around the lines "I won't change because of the past mathematicians" I was asking how that was justified it shows he is not open to change which is not an academic response coming from a moderator

Xander Henderson

@Dev_anon101 I still don't understand what you are talking about: (1) I see no such comment, even among the deleted comments, and (2) there were no moderators involved in that discussion. You can recognize moderators by the little blue diamonds next to their names.

As I read the comments, they basically say "A lot of very smart people have worked on this problem over the last 80 years or so, and none of them found an elementary proof that could fit on a single page. If they couldn't do it, there is no reason to believe that you have." Again, this may be a bit harsh or blunt, but it is not abusive.

You are making an extraordinary claim, i.e. that you have resolved Collatz. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden is on you to provide that evidence. It is not on other people to find the flaws in your reasoning---you need to do that.

Dev_anon101

17:18

"A lot of very smart people have worked on this problem over the last 80 years or so, and none of them found an elementary proof that could fit on a single page. If they couldn't do it, there is no reason to believe that you have." that is stating it, in short it is saying if people of the past couldn't then no reason to believe me or someone in future can't. Although I will say I can't remember the exact word so will assume this is what he originally said.

What I meant by abusive or now as you say blunt was him saying He won't read the "proof" and then said same as above user:

Xander Henderson

You need to understand that you are imposing on the community here when you ask them to read your proof, particularly when such discussions are out-of-scope here. Point (1) is quite relevant: this site is not meant for proof checking, particularly when the "proof" relates to famous open problems.

Dev_anon101

I provided my evidence on how I arrived there and the steps, a statement saying I am wrong would then need a reason why which he did not give other then the above you quoted which is not a valid reason as nothing of past can ever be said to 100% be always true in the future

Xander Henderson

Point (2) is blunt, but almost certainly correct: your proof is almost certainly incorrect---you are only using elementary tools. If an elementary proof existed, it is nigh certain that someone would have already come across it.

Dev_anon101

To be fair I wouldn't be surprised if someone did do this but more than likely it was never accepted, more importantly why did no one choose to validate even and odd numbers given that they naturally make up the positive integers, but instead went to prove it converges to 2^k. But that can be discussed elsewhere on here I posted how I came to convergence, if he is going to say it is incorrect even after I given my proof the least he can do is show where

Xander Henderson

@Dev_anon101 That sounds a awful lot like a conspiracy theory, to me.

Dev_anon101

17:33

That could easily be proven through just looking at history and likely supported by social science but I am not here to prove that but wanted to state a possible reason on why you never saw it before

HackR

17:46

Hi! If a mod can see this, it would be really helpful.

I just wanted to raise a flag about a question that the OP deleted after i wrote an answer to it and had a discussion with them about it. Here's a link : https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4995303/when-can-zv-w-cap-zv-w-varnothing/

Thanks in advance.

HackR

18:21

The question has been reinstated. Thank you!

Dev_anon101

19:05

@BillDubuque I made the edit you suggested before you deleted for the tag I used

« first day (3579 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (105 days later) »

all rooms