« first day (3479 days earlier)      last day (132 days later) » 

12:31 AM
@OliverDiaz I really don't like this community's proclivity to end such critical comments with "cheers!" Just say "I disagree", don't imply your opinion is so obviously correct that those disagreeing with you are just angry & bitter
 
@JackGallagher Thanks for coming here! Actually, I was somewhat split as well, as you saw above. I think the enforcement, though, was strictly per guidelines, and I admit that , given that inconsistencies were causing problems recently, the move to close the question comes across as fairly straightforward. The only thing that seems to be holding it back is what I wrote about "context" as "background" + "effort according to background" being sufficient for me. I see others react sentimentally, but...
... closure is not to be subject to sentiment as was rightly pointed out.
The right way to phrase an argument against closure is NOT to use the user's background to say that they are naive and young and that closure would hurt them. It would be to say that per their background, the effort they've made and their deductions would have the same amount of conviction as you would expect someone of that level to have (not to mention that the level was stated), and therefore it is at least debatably on-topic.
 
 
5 hours later…
 
2 hours later…
7:40 AM
@JackGallagher "It shows a profound arrogance to think one has proven something by just plotting $y=x+2$. " The worst observation/comment ever.
 
 
2 hours later…
 
1 hour later…
10:55 AM
One more vote needed: C1
For closure: C2, C3, C4, C5,
C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11
For deletion: D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6
@ArcticChar Each of D5 and D6 needs one more vote.
 
11:12 AM
@OliverDiaz First of all, how do you want to know my age and the age of the asker ? Do you know the author ? Do you know me ? Second : Questions are here judged by their content and their quality , to bring the age into the discussion is abolutely off-topic
 
Joe
11:22 AM
@Peter: People can complain for whatever reason they see fit. I said that they have reason to complain because the question shouldn't have created so much needless controversy, and you didn't address that point
 
@Joe If I remember right, the controversy started with your claim here that closing (not deleting!) this question would be an awful decision. And you cannot forbid other users downvotes and/or closevotes just because you disagree. That is just ridiculous. So, what exactly do you expect ? That we ignore the rules of this site because of emotions ? No.
 
Joe
@Peter: Nowhere did I say that closing the question would be an awful decision—I just said that I disagreed with it. And I started this discussion by asking Saad why he voted to close—not something that should cause a flame war. And did I make an argument for why the post should be kept open based on the asker's age or my emotions? No.
 
11:53 AM
 
12:35 PM
@OliverDiaz In what way have I been partisan here? There is a standard that peer-review and verification of purported proofs of famous open problems are off-topic. I enforced that standard.
@OliverDiaz Pointing out that the question is wrong does not require one to post an answer. One can respectfully point out that the proof is wrong while also believing that the question is not appropriate for Math SE.
Again, the role of Math SE on the internet is not tutoring. It is to build a repository of questions and answers which have lasting value. In what way does a hopelessly naïve attempt at resolving the twin prime conjecture serve future readers?
@OliverDiaz The only person here who seems genuinely angry is you. You are insulting the people who disagree with you, and projecting emotion into those folk. Perhaps you should focus on the merits of the question, rather than your perception of those people who disagree with you?
@TeresaLisbon The problem with the question is not that it fails to meet the context standards. The problem is that it is fundamentally off-topic. It is a request for the community to vet a "proof" of a famous open conjecture. Such questions are fundamentally off-topic.
Finally, let me please remind you all that stars in this room should be used to indicate material which people may want to refer back to in the future. Stars are not for indicating "like".
 
1:36 PM
@XanderHenderson Of course you and the room owners can decide on how stars in this room are used, this is just not the usual way stars are used in social media (which stars just mean like). BTW, someone just ignored your comment and starred a comment.
 
@ArcticChar I consider stars to be for important comments that should be noticed. In fact, usually I do it when I agree a comment, and mostly I therefore like the comment. But of course I consider it not to be a usual "like". I avoid such social media anyway.
 
@lonestudent Given that they claimed to prove a major open problem with half a page of elementary mathematics, I actually agree with that statement (I am not saying that I would say exactly the same sentence to that 7 grader).
 
@XanderHenderson In fact the ugliest post I can remember that was directed only to me.
@lonestudent And this insults all users that tried or try to close the post. Jack just said the truth.
 
1:52 PM
@Peter I used it this way too, but I am sure you know, those stars would usually be removed.
 
No, I don't. "useful/interesting" is a broad definition.
 
2:10 PM
@Peter Thanks for comment. I believe you are a mathematician who doesn't use close vote and downvote unless it's unfair. I can't give the "most correct" comment on this question on the site. Because I don't know everything about the site. The only thing I disagree with is that the reason for this post is "arrogance". Never. I can't participate in any way. Because Jack is not a fortune teller. Not a psychologist. Not a seer who reads people's minds.
 
2:20 PM
@JackGallagher I do not think someone who is starting out in maths can or should be called "arrogant" - naive is a better word.
 
2:32 PM
Frankly, I do think that it is arrogant to believe that you can resolve a long-standing open problem with material which is taught in the 7th grade. The underlying assumption is that every highly-trained expert in the field was just too stupid to see such a simple proof. However, I don't find that kind of arrogance to be particularly upsetting or much of a character flaw in a a 13 or 14 year old.
Adolescents are all arrogant, sociopathic little narcissists. That is part of being an adolescent---in order to find your place in the world, you have to start with yourself and work outwards, which creates a period in a person's life where they are the center of the world. Eventually, most of us grow up and realize that we are not particularly special, and that no one really cares about our opinions, but I can't imagine trying to get through high school without a certain arrogant swagger.
It is an important part of growing up, and I see nothing wrong with a little adolescent arrogance.
 
@XanderHenderson Is this about the recent "proof" on the twin prime conjecture?
 
So, let's call a spade a spade: claiming to resolve a long-standing open problem is arrogant. There's nothing wrong with that.
 
Joe
@soupless: Yes, it is
 
@soupless Yes.
 
If, hypothetically, it solves the conjecture, then the conjecture should probably be proven a long time ago, right?
 
2:36 PM
@soupless As I said, if something you learn in 7th grade is going to resolve the twin-prime conjecture, then it would have been resolved 100 years ago.
That being said, it might be kinder to say that the asker is "naïve". Personally, that is the language I prefer.
 
Joe
@XanderHenderson: Someone that age might have taken an interest in the conjecture, and thought about ways of solving it. Then, they might have a "eureka" moment, and not take a step back and consider how someone else would have thought of their idea before them. Of course, it could be arrogance, but I think that is more likely to be naive optimism
 
@Joe We seem to be arguing semantics here---you describe an act of naïve arrogance; an act of hubris; and seem to bristle at it being called out as such. That's fine. As I said, my preference is to use the term naïve. But the inability or unwillingness to take that step back and consider that someone else might have had the same thought in the past is rather arrogant.
Once again, I have no problem with that---I taught middle school. Middle schoolers are some of the most arrogant people on the face of the earth. It is a natural part of growing up.
It isn't a bad thing.
It just is.
In any event, I need to teach now.
 
I solved the cubic equation when I was a grade 10 student. But not with Vieta (not a copy of the solution methods mentioned in wikipedia). Now let's go back in time. Then I am arrogant. I solved a problem that was open to people for a long time. Note: I was keeping the papers I solved when I was in 10th grade. But unfortunately someone burned them.
 
3:02 PM
@lonestudent Like Fermat who had no place for his proof of his last theorem. It is really better to end.
 
@lonestudent That is very sad to hear. Was it the solution of a unsolved paper? And don't worry if you can problems in class 10 definitely you can solve them now also
 
@XanderHenderson Ok, I will keep this in mind. Thanks for the enforcement, it may disappoint people but it's a definitive step in a direction.
 
@JitendraSingh The papers were burned. Or rather, they burned it on purpose. This is not the place to talk. My English is not good. I don't want people to think badly of me. I solved the quadratic, quartic and cubic equation with the same method. (Not in the 10th grade! I generalized the same method 5 years later). I wanted to post it to ArXiv. I don't care anymore. My tex-latex-English doesn't allow it anyway.
 
3:28 PM
@Peter Probably, Fermat did not know about elliptic curves. But the solution involved only algebra. (if I remember correct) But now it is known that the solution is (almost) impossible without elliptic curves. I hope I'm not wrong.
 
I agree. Chances that Fermat had a proof are extremely small. He almost surely was a victim of an easy proof that was however invalid. Can happen everyone, even Fermat.
Note that he claimed to have an easy (!) proof , but what does this mean for something like Fermat ? :) I think he considered quite complicated proofs to be "easy".
 
That's right too :). But at least we know He doesn't use Elliptic curves. Maybe he was using elliptic curves without even knowing it. But with different notations, different words...? Who knows?!
 
3:56 PM
D1, D2, D3
D4, D5, D6
 
 
5 hours later…
9:18 PM
 

« first day (3479 days earlier)      last day (132 days later) »