Timeline for Could we add another reason for closing that's more appropriate for "check this (dis)proof of RH"-type questions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2022 at 3:57 | comment | added | Tim Campion Mod | @MartinSleziak Just recording that in addition to the useful Meta.SE links you shared, there were important updates to the close system in 2019. | |
| May 6, 2022 at 18:06 | answer | added | Tim CampionMod | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 5, 2022 at 22:07 | comment | added | Joe Silverman | Martin points to a useful FAQ. Here's another link that contains a lot of useful and well thought out advice for an "amateur" who thinks they've proven a long-standing conjecture such as the Riemann hypothesis. This is where I tend to direct people who submit a short proof of RH or the Golbach or twin prime conjectures to a journal at which I'm an editor: cohn.mit.edu/advice | |
| May 3, 2022 at 16:36 | comment | added | Will Sawin | If a new close reason is added, I think it should be as general as possible to handle many reasons of this type. Maybe "This is a type of question disallowed by the site's rules" and then a link to a page with some examples. | |
| May 2, 2022 at 12:22 | comment | added | Will Sawin | Some journals do referee dubious proofs of major open problems - I have been asked to do this for the Annals. I don't think they're actually happy to have such papers sent their way, but the Journal of Number Theory is, since they charge for them (and pay the referee). | |
| May 2, 2022 at 8:38 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | @LSpice Re: how do we express agreement? So far, this question has no answers. E.g., you (or somebody else) could post an answer with suggested wording for the new close reason. (And other users could up/downvote to show whether they agree or not.) Similarly, if somebody is against this new close reason, they could post an answer summarizing the arguments why it is not a good idea - and then MO users could show by voting on that answer whether or not they agree. (In the absence of answers, perhaps at last voting on the question says something about the (dis)agreement with the suggestion.) | |
| May 2, 2022 at 1:14 | comment | added | LSpice | @StefanKohl, my apologies; I did not mean to sound impatient. | |
| May 1, 2022 at 21:46 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl Mod | @LSpice Some patience please ... . | |
| May 1, 2022 at 14:27 | comment | added | LSpice | @StefanKohl, how do we express agreement? (I definitely want more close reasons; and, though I don't know if "spending" a close reason on "MO isn't the forum for proposed proofs of open problems" is the best use of it, I don't have any obviously better candidate. I do wish we had the old blunter reasons back ….) | |
| Apr 30, 2022 at 14:08 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | FWIW the style of that deleted question resembles a known "repeat offender", but I don't know if it is appropriate to have a reason for closing that is "we have told you repeatedly why your efforts in this direction are almost certainly doomed" | |
| Apr 30, 2022 at 12:36 | history | became hot meta post | |||
| Apr 30, 2022 at 11:30 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | Re: is there a standardized FAQ to which to redirect people. This isn't exactly what you're asking for, but on Academia there is this post: I believe I have solved a famous open problem. How do I convince people in the field that I am not a crank? | |
| Apr 30, 2022 at 11:18 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl Mod | @MartinSleziak Yes, there is presently one free slot. If there is agreement on this, I can add the proposed close reason there. (If it turns out that there are more important uses for that slot, it can be changed at any time.) | |
| Apr 30, 2022 at 10:30 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | It seems that there can be only three custom close reasons - see: How do moderators make changes to the site-specific closed question reasons? and How do moderators update custom off-topic reasons for their site? Maybe somebody (the moderators?) can check whether this is still true. (However, even if the maximum is three, on MO there is still one free spot.) | |
| Apr 30, 2022 at 10:13 | history | asked | Gro-Tsen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |