Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Answer

replaced http://meta.mathoverflow.net/ with https://meta.mathoverflow.net/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

The distinction between "published" and "preprint" is fuzzy and not all that relevant. I propose to adopt the same policysame policy for both that is:

[W]e should avoid discussing preprints papers in general terms. If there is a specific question about a specific step in a proof and suitable context is given so that reading the paper is not a prerequisite, then it is on topic.

The distinction between "published" and "preprint" is fuzzy and not all that relevant. I propose to adopt the same policy for both that is:

[W]e should avoid discussing preprints papers in general terms. If there is a specific question about a specific step in a proof and suitable context is given so that reading the paper is not a prerequisite, then it is on topic.

The distinction between "published" and "preprint" is fuzzy and not all that relevant. I propose to adopt the same policy for both that is:

[W]e should avoid discussing preprints papers in general terms. If there is a specific question about a specific step in a proof and suitable context is given so that reading the paper is not a prerequisite, then it is on topic.

Source Link
user9072
user9072

The distinction between "published" and "preprint" is fuzzy and not all that relevant. I propose to adopt the same policy for both that is:

[W]e should avoid discussing preprints papers in general terms. If there is a specific question about a specific step in a proof and suitable context is given so that reading the paper is not a prerequisite, then it is on topic.