Timeline for Questions on Coq
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2022 at 4:54 | comment | added | Nike Dattani | @darijgrinberg , Nate, S. Carnahan, in case if any of you hadn't seen this yet: Stack Exchange will very soon be launching a brand new site dedicated to computer-assisted proofs: please use my referral link here if you're considering to get an invitation to the Private Beta! I also posted on Meta about this. | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| May 4, 2014 at 23:51 | vote | accept | David RobertsMod | ||
| May 4, 2014 at 12:04 | answer | added | Gerald Edgar | timeline score: 8 | |
| May 4, 2014 at 4:12 | comment | added | darij grinberg | I have also posted two (or more?) Coq questions but for some reason I didn't notice there was a tag. | |
| May 3, 2014 at 14:19 | answer | added | user9072 | timeline score: 15 | |
| May 3, 2014 at 12:04 | comment | added | user9072 | The final comment then was by Anton Geraschenko that basically suggested that the entire practice is abandonded and people post on meta instead. But likely I should have written some conisder it as bad form (I think I could come up with some other quotes), instead of the more assertive statement. ( @S.Carnahan ) | |
| May 3, 2014 at 11:59 | comment | added | user9072 | @S.Carnahan as you know, the "cancellation" voting in comments got discontinued, among others at least so my understandingfor this precise reason. The penultimate comment the relevant tea thread (by Andrew Stacey) contains "I don't like the "pre-emptive" votes to stay open. If someone feels that a question is in danger of being closed, but no-one has actually voted to close yet then the right thing to do is start a meta thread and link to it." (cont.) | |
| May 3, 2014 at 6:59 | comment | added | S. Carnahan Mod | As it happens, I disagree with quid's comment about "bad form". As far as I know, the rough consensus about cancellation did not specify that one should wait for a vote to close before casting a vote against. | |
| May 3, 2014 at 6:24 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge |
Thanks, David. I just wanted to say that the question about the four color theorem was less about Coq and more of a reference-request, asking where I could find the code that the authors mentioned in their paper but didn't link, so I'm not sure that it really fits into this discussion. And either way this discussion comes out, I don't have any other Coq questions to ask at present, so nobody need fear a flood from me :)
|
|
| May 3, 2014 at 2:05 | history | asked | David RobertsMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |