@shoteyes This can (very occasionally) be a good thing for the site, though I'm not sure I'd say that particular link is. In either case, it's been self-deleted.
@KReiser I think with "very occasionally" you mean a great discovery although even then there are better sites where this should be posted. The purpose of this site surely is not sharing results (at least not in the question-answer section , in chat-rooms such posts would be much more suitable) . However, I would like to see more project questions (searching primes , factoring numbers , etc.) , of course with pre-work from the author.
@shoteyes Self-answered questions are explicitly encouraged (on all SE sites): math.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer. But it should be a question and an answer (not, e.g., theorem and proof), and the same requirements apply as for any other question (such as providing context).
I agree with all your responses. The main issue for me was that it was a trend of not being question & answer, but rather theorem & proof. But, it seems as it was deleted anyway.
@Peter That was not really what I had in mind - in the areas I frequent, there's been a few posts of the type "here's something that's a natural question to ask (or a statement similar to one in the literature which ought to be true) with an interesting resolution but it's not written down anywhere else" which have been well-received over the years.
I agree that sharing results is not usually the purpose of the site.
@TeresaLisbon I have some conjectures about the Carmichael function , and I was again bad in the chess games I played in lichess. I think I should stop playing chess.
@Peter I just discovered lichess this year when looking for resources for my son. I don't remember running across it back when I actively played, but it certainly is a really nice resource now.
@rschwieb Only minus : The beg for donations. But apparently all sites try this, even private persons. The rules are a bit too sctrict, but at last a good site. It is not the fault of the site, if I play such a crap in 5 0 games :)
@Joe I really don't want the site to become a go-to place for checking ANY proof to famous conjectures. There might be some serious attempts which deserves discussion (if it is asked in a way that it's not too board), but most of them are just half-baked ideas which does not help in proving the conjecture. In this particular situation, the problem is pointed out in the comment, and I think the poster gets what they want.
@Joe Math SE is not an appropriate place to request peer-review. We are not equipped to review new work (whether or not that work relates to a famous open problem).
What I find annoying about that question is that the argument is being made that the question should be reopened because the asker is young. This has nothing to do with the quality of the question itself.
But, I suppose, we are intended to coddle youth anymore. :\
My daughter, who is 9, has better sense than this (most of the time). She understands that she is allowed to hang out with the grownups and join in adult conversation, but that this means that she has to follow the rules and norms of that conversation. It is astonishing to me that folk don't view this site similarly.
@XanderHenderson: But the asker is not requesting that people peer-review a serious attempt at the twin prime conjecture. Even many people in secondary education would be able to spot what is wrong with his purported proof.
In the past, you've written that "Math SE is intended to be a repository of narrow, focused questions with high-quality, authoritative answers. We tread over known ground here (in comparison to MathOverflow, where research questions are more on-topic), and we cannot peer-review the work of others."
I understand this sentiment, but this question is narrowly focused, and a huge proportion of people on this site could write an authoritative answer. We are most definitely treading over known ground—the basic fault in the argument is that every pair of twin primes is a point on the line, but not every point on the line is a pair of twin primes.
This is a basic logical fallacy that is not research-level in the least. The fact that the twin prime conjecture as a whole is a research-level question doesn't seem relevant to me.
@Peter: I think the author does have reason to complain. Questions like this shouldn't create so much needless controversy.
@ArcticChar: Imagine if the OP phrased that question not as "Is my proof of the twin prime conjecture correct?", but "What is wrong with my 'proof' of the twin prime conjecture?" MSE has seen countlessly many questions of the second kind, and they have often been well-received
@Joe I wonder if MSE really had a lot of such questions. Anyway, I thought of changing to the wording more or less as you suggested and then voted to reopen, but stopped since the proof there really don't have any merit. The post is reopened and I just voted to close as missing context.
@Joe Encouraging such proof trials lets the site drift away completely because countless users will produce utterly insufficient proof trials of famous conjectures , if they see that they can even gain many points with such posts. That other posts received the upvotes unjustified does not mean that this post should be upvoted. I agree Arctic Char and Xander and I am pretty sure that amWhy will agree as well. And no , the user cannot complain after having achieved a reopening.
I think there should be plenty of comments that encourage such a user, but I am not sure that we should keep this open just out of sentiment that someone from grade 7 is asking it. We could, of course point to the fact that the background of the user suggests that a desmos plot and a guess that future points would lie on the line (which has infinitely many points) counts as sufficient context at that level. Although if the community feels that way, then well, that's how it is.
I think i'm fine with the question, on second thoughts.
There's plenty of evidence that the asker's background is what it is, and not a circumvented effort. I will keep this question open for that reason.
What more can you ask for context from someone who's in grade 7 and shows it, to be fair?
@Peter: the user you are referring to is a kid, you are an old geezer. Guiding him/her in the right direction, and with the dully respect that everybody deserves, would be more valuable for the user and also healthy for our community. After all, this is a a QA site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields.
@OliverDiaz Ignore the claimed age of the asker. If the user had not claimed to be in 7th grade, would you be so vociferous about defending that question?
The question purports to provide a proof of the twin primes conjecture. However sophisticated (or unsophisticated) that claimed proof, Math SE is not the right place for it.
I am all for encouraging the user to pursue deeper mathematical understanding, but that does not mean that I think their question is appropriate for Math SE---the goal of Math SE is not to educate or tutor folk, but to create a repository of questions and answers which are likely to be useful and helpful in the future.
I don't see how that question serves that purpose.
@XanderHenderson That's the point. The writing and proposed logic makes it clear that the user is having such a background. Besides, we ask users to mention their background, so why not? Besides, the "proof" is something undisputedly wrong (which is usually our trouble with, say, twin-prime or Riemann Hypothesis conjecture-type questions). I'm going to say that the question contains enough context. Whether that context makes it useful or not, I do not know.
I just want to make sure that people are not keeping the question open because of sentiment towards such a user. I don't see that happening with myself, even if it may be happening with the others, because the grade serves that purpose : of being a barometer to acknowledge the attempt of the user as "enough".
"Background" (grade 7) + "effort according to background" (diagram, knowledge of infinitely many points on a line) = should be ok (or at least, borderline).
@TeresaLisbon The problem with purported proofs of major open problems on Math SE is not that they are subtly wrong. The problem is that Math SE is not a forum for proofreading or verifying or peer-reviewing purported proofs fo open problems.
The fact that this particular attempt is extremely naïve and unsophisticated is not a mark in its favor.
@XanderHenderson I see, that's uniform application of the guideline, I suppose. I think the issue is that the guideline is being applied "despite" the presence of an eager naive OP and an undisputedly correct answer, and that's irking people. Fair point.
Having said that, I can still imagine people applying the "context" guideline as I did to argue regarding closure. It then comes down to which directive(context vs. such questions being on-topic for MSE at all) is superior.
@OliverDiaz I wouldn't. It shows a profound arrogance to think one has proven something by just plotting $y=x+2$. He oughta be encouraged to continue studying mathematics (and indeed he was in the comments!) but the question itself is frankly of very little value.
@OliverDiaz how has Xander not been impartial? He's applying the rules as they are clearly written. It'd be impartial not to apply the rules because of the age & inexperience of the asker
@JackGallagher Just imagine if you ask a question in class and your lecturer dismisses your question as worthless. In any event, this is MSE, not the Annals of mathematics or Physics Letters. People at any level can participate here and treated respectfully, and when in someone makes a Mathematical argument that is wrong, pointing that out is helpful.
@OliverDiaz Closing a question is not disrespectful, that's ridiculous. The comments on the post were extremely respectful! The asker got exactly the feedback he needed. But moderators have to consider a higher goal, the health of the community of the whole. And this question frankly teaches no one other than the asker anything, because it's based entirely on a fundamental misunderstanding of mathematical proof
The question was reopen... now those angry adults are trying to close it. It is a little sad that young people like you are getting into arguments among old-geezers (including myself) instead of going answering questions, going to summer schools and/or conferences. Keep doing whatever you it is you do. I will stop having this viByzantine discussions. Cheers!
