This answer is wrong for the reason tzs gave, and needs downvotes to counter the naive upvotes.
Meaningless and wrong answer because defining x∨y as (x+y) mod 3 is senseless (think about x∨x) and fails to even agree with the table given in the question.
@ParamanandSingh My view is slightly different from Xander. Whether a question is from a contest or not, in itself, does not influence my judgement of whether it is a good question or not. That is, if questions A and B are both devoid of effort or motivation, they are equally bad, even if A has clearly cited non-contest source and B is from an uncited contest.
That said, I do take into account the likely source in evaluating effort. The reason is that every programming contest problem comes with sample input/output. And many many cheaters have discovered that they can easily cheat on Math SE by just copy-pasting the entire contest problem together with that sample input/output, because some people on Math SE either are unaware of or refuse to accept that those samples are not the asker's attempts! That is the most irritating situation for PSQs...
@ParamanandSingh Indeed. And, frankly, I don't find the answer all that useful.
:\
@user21820 I don't think that our points of view are that divergent. I think our biggest disagreement is about "effort": I don't find "effort" to be a very useful form of context. A source, description of motivation, or statements of relevant theorems or definitions are good context, IMHO.
@ParamanandSingh The OP said they used substitution, so very likely they have come up with that term in the answer, just that they do not know if there is an explicit form (without using gamma function)
Anywho, I am dead tired. My cognitive function is likely somewhat impaired right now (was up at 5; packed a UHaul; drove for 8 hours; started the process of unpacking). Need sleep now.
@XanderHenderson Fortunately, I'm not in that category, because for me context is attempt or motivation. If it's homework, the asker certainly cannot provide motivation, but can at least provide an attempt as a show of good faith that he/she is not just dumping work on others.
But if it's a mathematically interesting question in its own right, or just out of plain curiosity, the asker just has to say so and that's fine by me.
@user21820 That sounds like "motivation" to me. :) Of course, knowing more about the background of teh asker would hellp. In any event, I really am going ot bed.... I'm not going to repllly any more.
@XanderHenderson That one is.. err.. not even an attempt (by the asker) so it doesn't even count. Always leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, but I think you'd have to discuss more with the other moderators because I don't think they are in 100% agreement on the appropriateness of such edits.
@ArcticChar: I would be more than happy if they added their effort in math Jax rather than saying I tried a substitution.
@user21820: for me the context is more a matter of showing honesty/seriousness/sincerety/etc about getting the answer to the problem at hand. Just give me some some evidence of that in your question and I consider the question suitable. When I was a student I had some classmates who were rather below average and still wanted to pass and ask me for help. Even they showed some honesty in trying to understand whatever little they could manage. Well they passed!
@ParamanandSingh Indeed that's also my personal view. Unfortunately, a lot of people on Math SE insist that we cannot reliably tell whether an asker is honest and serious about learning or not. That's why I end up stating more objective criteria.
I totally know what you are saying about honest students who may start off with less prior knowledge than other students but still try their best. I too want to see such students succeed. =)
Actually cheating makes it bad even for better students. When I myself was a student long ago, I witnessed a few mathematically competent students who were at a severe disadvantage because they did not go online for solutions to homework, so they handed in half-complete attempts. Some of their classmates, on the other hand, even posted the entire homework on Yahoo Answers and bragged about it.
@ParamanandSingh: Speaking of contest PSQs, here is an example, where the last two lines are clearly sample input/output. This user regularly posts contest PSQs, some of which are cheating attempts.
If, after 28 months of waiting and the third request, I within a few hours receive “Reviewer # 1: Sorry that this review took so long. However, this paper does not contain any results of value”, I know that the referee read only the author's name and, possibly, the title of the article.
If I get...
I looked briefly at your paper arxiv.org/pdf/1402.6571.pdf. Indeed I do not find it easy to read, but since you asked for a particular problem point: your equation (15) gives an asymptotic for the number of twin primes up to n of the form C(n) n/(log n)^2. Except possibly for the value of C(n), this is the Hardy-Littlewood conjecture, so -- much stronger than the existence of infinitely many twin primes. But all you say in the way of justification is "Construction for double sieving can be described roughly as..." This is a (big) problem point in your paper.
The problem is, as I said, that you assert something that implies infinitely many twin primes with no justification whatsoever. Then in the proof of Proposition 10 you write that pi_2(6m) >mH_m holds for all m> 5 without any justification. I showed your paper just now to a colleague of mine who is an expert in this area of number theory. He agreed that these are serious gaps in the argument. More explanation than this is not reasonable to ask: the burden has to be on you to make sense rather than on the mathematical community to explain to your satisfaction why you are not making sense.
...In short: you have major misunderstandings of the work of Rosser and Schoenfeld and also of what constitutes a valid mathematical proof. Because of this you have written paper "does not contain any results of value." So Reviewer #1 was right and your implication that he did not read your paper is not justified. You would be using your time much more efficiently if you shored up your knowledge of basic mathematics rather than submitting papers that claim to prove Goldbach, prime k-tuples, etc. You may not be able to understand why your work is wrong until you learn more.
@ArcticChar You should flag for moderator attention. Generally, blatant cranks are dealt with quite efficiently by them when they start spamming Math SE with their crankery.
(Also because you don't have enough rep to delete-vote yet.)
@ParamanandSingh See above remarks from a real expert Pete Clark, who (I was very surprised to see) actually went to read the paper... =)
I did flag as "not an answer", since "very low quality" flag is no longer available (I flagged another answer in the same post and it's gone. So I just post it here.
@ParamanandSingh Indeed real mathematics is more rewarding for normal people. Actually (I think) I understand cranks, but it's a bit taboo to talk too much about them. The core feature is that they want to be different from others.
@user21820 I’ve only known one real crank in person. My impression was that he knew, subconsciously or not, he would be unable to make contributions in conventional mathematics, so he rationalized “breaking with conventional mathematics. Another big component I think is that cranks often want to believe the experts are wrong. This makes for a more compelling pitch when they’re trying to blinker people who know nothing about mathematics.
3
@ParamanandSingh Hve you seen John Baez’s crackpot index for physics? I was just looking for a mathematical version and found this primes.utm.edu/notes/crackpot.html
