I have recently seen this post about the theorem von Neumann proved in five minutes.
Searching for more information about that, it was certain that I can't find any references for what the theorem was.
But as I looked through the comments, I found it very convincing that it was an open problem wh...
@rschwieb Not at all. I think I made it clear that people who want to get feedback on their attempt should put it as an attempt in the question. So they certainly can learn and improve. Secondly, it's not about enforcement but culture. There is no reason to encourage people to fill up the answer boxes with stuff that even they are not sure of.
@user21820 I agree. Self-answers are extremely rarely a suitable action. Almost always an update in the question about the progress the author achieved is better. Only if the author managed to solve the problem completely BEFORE someone else answers , a self-answer might make sense, but in this case a comment that the problem is solved or a deletion is a suitable action as well.
For any number N the parity vector v(N) is defined as $v_i(N) = S_i \pmod 2$
If N is a positive integer of the form $a\cdot 2^k + b (b < 2^k)$
then the first k elements of the parity vector are dependent on b only
The proof is by induction on k.
For k = 1 we have $N = 2^a + b$ with b either 0 or ...
@user21820 If they "are not sure of" something then they have a question, not a solution verification. Ergo they don't need to post a self-answer. You may feel self-answers are rarely appropriate, but compared too the mess we'd get with everybody and their brother's spin on an attempted proof in a post, I think it's obvious which result is more desirable.
self-answers also have the benefit of being more clearly closed as duplicate, where appropriate. When you ball them together in the post it's a lot harder and you get more pushback.
Problem:
How many different three-digit numbers can be made with $3$ fours, $4$ twos and
$2$ threes?
Answer:
Let $c$ be the count we seek.
I am going to start by enumerating the cases using just fours and twos. Here is my list:
$$ 222 \, , \, 224 \, , \, 242 \, , \, 244 \, $$
$$ 422 \, , \, 424 ...
> My answer matches the book's answer. However, my reasoning does not seem right to me. I am not sure why. Is my solution correct?
@rschwieb If the problem is that people are unwilling to close something as duplicate even if it is, then the problem is simply that, and so we shouldn't be trying to tell people to post self-answers just so that it's easier(?!) to close as duplicate.
Also, although it is irrelevant to my main point above, others may consider it important that posting a self-answer causes the thread to be excluded from the "unanswered questions" list, which makes it really silly since this signals via the SE system that the question has been answered... But patently falsely, since it's a solution-verification question!
@amWhy Please don't be obtuse. We have definitely discussed the activity of closing questions as dupes when the question and existing solution are dupes. I shouldn't have to explain this.
@user21820 This is a grey area case, and it could be handled in multiple ways. It is not a disproof that one way is wrong. Incidentally I would not recommend this for a self-answer format. Questions like this wind up being deleted, in the likely case that "there is nothing to discuss," or else there is an obvious flaw in which case a satisfactory answer can be given.
@amWhy Sorry.. I don't know why it linked to that comment!
@amWhy I am not sure what attack you are talking about, unless you are sockpuppetting with user21820, and even then I'm on the defensive
@user21820 Please don't be obtuse. We have definitely discussed the activity of closing questions as dupes when the question and existing solution are dupes. I shouldn't have to explain this.
I guess i'm unable to delete my mislinked comment.
@rschwieb This is the post I referred to. I am not in any way shape or form, user 21820. You addressed me, and linked to an earlier comment I wrote. What comment to me did you intend to link to?
@amWhy I knew exactly what comment you're talking about. I'm just a little surprised you can't all see that it was an obvious slip and that you're immediately taking offense for it. Super sorry I'm not perfect at checking these 6-7 digit numbers! have mercy!
Jesus I somehow still didnt' get the link right
My apparently inflammatory comment above is supposed to address Answers can't be "closed as dupes", and questions to do not belong in answer fields.
@rschwieb That's exactly what I responded to. Do not name call, please. "don't be obtuse", and my response linked to your character dig. You can criticize what I wrote, but not who I am. I am a proud acute angle, not obtuse. (just my humor to lighten things up.) Folks here aren't always going to agree. I am choosing not to take offense. I know you better than that.
I realize this may be one of those questions where it's ill-posed and can't be answered without further constraints. But if not, what's the distribution like? In particular, is every integer equally often represented?
On the one hand, that appears likely based on the observation that regardless o...
Anyhow now I feel very sorry for getting drawn into an off-topic conversation. I don't mind future discussion about it, but it'll have to be at that post, not here anymore. And I'd be much obliged if the thread could be cleaned up by someone. Thanks
@rschwieb No one lectured you; it was you actually, trying to humiliate me. If you run when the going gets tough, why should we trust you won't run if this is addressed in another venue?
