@amWhy I've been using a generic template for PSQ marking
I'll repost it
it might help for searching in case links get bruried
This question fits the criteria of a problem statement question. Currently we encourage users on this Stack Exchange site to not simply post the statement of their problem but also any attempts to solve the problem, thoughts on it, or background information that while irrelevant might enrich-en the content of the site. Please consider editing your post to correct this. Thank you.
so just a quick thingy
im going to go through every question under the floor function tag
simply because it appears manageable by me
ill make a google doc
and mark everything as tentative or one way or another
as my opinion
and then link it here
I think what it boils down to is that im curt and blunt
and not best to be trying to tell people what to do to fix their posts
but i can at least attempt to determine what is and isnt a problem post
Hi, this is a question that I had asked which turned out to be a duplicate. I don't think it adds anything that the main post doesn't have, so can it be deleted?
@user21820 This should not have been reopened, but too bad it was; the behaviour of anti-logic people is always the same.
Me and the others are the people who work professionally as logicians. We are willing to help beginners because we love to teach and because we still remember our teachers. We were always grateful to our teachers and we did not accuse them of not understanding simple logical notions. Instead we made good effort to understand what our teachers told us. Those were different times. I think you should probably try to learn logic from someone else. Good bye. — Andrej Bauer18 hours ago
@RushabhMehta @JoséCarlosSantos: One more close vote needed on this conjecture-only post.
@amWhy By the time he came along, it was a wall of text, and surely he didn't know about the user's history. You know how it is, it's easier to bury stuff in a deluge. =)
Probably under the influence of one admired user of his, say Hagen? who answered the post?
@user21820 Perhaps, but not a justifiable excuse. If we can't count on mods to be abreast of the antics of such users, and the shared knowledge of non-rep-seeking users who know a bit more than he in fields he's not up to snuff with, then how can we trust mods?
@amWhy This user changed name recently (from "Khong Dong"). The only reason I was suspicious from the beginning is that the asker was asserting stuff about a famous conjecture that is way beyond his/her competency level since expressing in arithmetic is far easier.
But maybe it might be more ideal if logic experts are left to deal with logic posts.
@amWhy Yes, I found that problematic as well. There are far better questions on the site already dealing with the mathematical issue of that post (how to code sequences in Peano Arithmetic), so keeping it adds nothing other than noise. It turns out the poster lacks the background (and the willingness to learn it) to understand rather basic concepts that are needed to even make sense of the question. Instead, well, you see what he says.
@AlexanderGruber I think it would be a disservice to the site to mark the question as a duplicate. It has a lot of distractions, because the poster does not have the background to make the question coherent. Instead, it spouses a problematic position: it argues for the opposite of what the actual answer is, ignoring the relevant mathematics. It seems asked in bad faith, given the history of the poster and their many comments.
4
@AlexanderGruber I think deleting it is far more appropriate. A naive reader that stumbles upon it would leave with the impression that there are issues to debate in this rather standard material.
@AlexanderGruber This seems like a waste of time, honestly. In any case, I would then suggest "off-topic because the question is not about mathematics". Willful nonsense is not mathematics; the question looks like mathematics to the untrained eye, but it is not.
@AlexanderGruber I understand that, but the close reason doesn't reflect our actual intent. I sometimes use "no effort" for non-math, other times "not about math" or "unclear". In this case it was clear that this poster was posting in bad faith (he self-answered that the 'showstopper' is that FOL falls short). In any case, can you just mark as duplicate of the link I just gave, which has both Andres' and Hagen's explicit answers on the coding?
None of us can vote to close anymore because it was reopened too soon after we first voted.
@JoséCarlosSantos oh wow, 2014 is almost 5 years... I still can't get used to time progression, first thing I think when you said so is 2010 or so(also, voted to close)
@amWhy Yes. It was that post that called my attention to the old one. Concerning today's post, I have already downvoted it and voted to delete it (as off-topic).
