Return to Question

I've read this, and also run into the unpleasant situation of having my proof that I wanted to get checked closed as "not constructive."

I realize that a lot of people consider P vs. NP a "crank subject." In my own mind, at least, I am not a crank, in the sense that I have some training in mathematics and am aware of what the difference between a correct and incorrect proof is. (See some of my old posts under my other profile if you need evidence that I'm not totally incompetent.)

My question is: Given that there are other proofs, including NP = coNP proofs that are trivially wrong (but good questions nonetheless), and that when CStheory.se was just getting started, they said that they might have CS.SE be a proof-checking site for proofs like the ones I seem generate...

What does the site consider to be the difference between an "acceptable" check-my-proof question and an unacceptable such question? (note, they even have a tag for check-my-proof)

Of course you know, my interest is in (finally!) having a venue other than comp.theory to try to get my P vs. NP proofs checked. I don't belong to any elite cliques TCS cliques, and no friends or colleagues that I know know a thing about any of this stuff. So although I realize that some people find P vs. NP attempts annoying, I am quite serious about suggesting that CS.SE should be a venue for proofs--even "crank-friendly" proofs.

Thanks for reading. Yes, this was part question and part my own opinion--I hope that is okay. I hope that moderators and others will decide to make CS.SE a home for a broader class of proof checks. Maybe there should be some sort of upper bound on the length of the proof? Or other constraints to prevent abuse of the system (e.g., 1 proof a month, maximum)?

(And for anyone who cares, I already realized that the proof I posted before was wrong or at least incomplete/inadequate.)

I've read this, and also run into the unpleasant situation of having my proof that I wanted to get checked closed as "not constructive."

I realize that a lot of people consider P vs. NP a "crank subject." In my own mind, at least, I am not a crank, in the sense that I have some training in mathematics and am aware of what the difference between a correct and incorrect proof is. (See some of my old posts under my other profile if you need evidence that I'm not totally incompetent.)

My question is: Given that there are other proofs, including NP = coNP proofs that are trivially wrong (but good questions nonetheless), and that when CStheory.se was just getting started, they said that they might have CS.SE be a proof-checking site for proofs like the ones I seem generate...

What does the site consider to be the difference between an "acceptable" check-my-proof question and an unacceptable such question? (note, they even have a tag for check-my-proof)

Of course you know, my interest is in (finally!) having a venue other than comp.theory to try to get my P vs. NP proofs checked. I don't belong to any elite cliques TCS cliques, and no friends or colleagues that I know know a thing about any of this stuff. So although I realize that some people find P vs. NP attempts annoying, I am quite serious about suggesting that CS.SE should be a venue for proofs--even "crank-friendly" proofs.

Thanks for reading. Yes, this was part question and part my own opinion--I hope that is okay. I hope that moderators and others will decide to make CS.SE a home for a broader class of proof checks. Maybe there should be some sort of upper bound on the length of the proof? Or other constraints to prevent abuse of the system (e.g., 1 proof a month, maximum)?

(And for anyone who cares, I already realized that the proof I posted before was wrong or at least incomplete/inadequate.)

I've read this, and also run into the unpleasant situation of having my proof that I wanted to get checked closed as "not constructive."

I realize that a lot of people consider P vs. NP a "crank subject." In my own mind, at least, I am not a crank, in the sense that I have some training in mathematics and am aware of what the difference between a correct and incorrect proof is. (See some of my old posts under my other profile if you need evidence that I'm not totally incompetent.)

My question is: Given that there are other proofs, including NP = coNP proofs that are trivially wrong (but good questions nonetheless), and that when CStheory.se was just getting started, they said that they might have CS.SE be a proof-checking site for proofs like the ones I seem generate...

What does the site consider to be the difference between an "acceptable" check-my-proof question and an unacceptable such question? (note, they even have a tag for check-my-proof)

Of course you know, my interest is in (finally!) having a venue other than comp.theory to try to get my P vs. NP proofs checked. I don't belong to any elite cliques TCS cliques, and no friends or colleagues that I know know a thing about any of this stuff. So although I realize that some people find P vs. NP attempts annoying, I am quite serious about suggesting that CS.SE should be a venue for proofs--even "crank-friendly" proofs.

Thanks for reading. Yes, this was part question and part my own opinion--I hope that is okay. I hope that moderators and others will decide to make CS.SE a home for a broader class of proof checks. Maybe there should be some sort of upper bound on the length of the proof? Or other constraints to prevent abuse of the system (e.g., 1 proof a month, maximum)?

(And for anyone who cares, I already realized that the proof I posted before was wrong or at least incomplete/inadequate.)

I've read this, and also run into the unpleasant situation of having my proof that I wanted to get checked closed as "not constructive."

I realize that a lot of people consider P vs. NP a "crank subject." In my own mind, at least, I am not a crank, in the sense that I have some training in mathematics and am aware of what the difference between a correct and incorrect proof is. (See some of my old posts under my other profile if you need evidence that I'm not totally incompetent.)

My question is: Given that there are other proofs, including NP = coNP proofs that are trivially wrong (but good questions nonetheless), and that when CStheory.se was just getting started, they said that they might have CS.SE be a proof-checking site for proofs like the ones I seem generate...

What does the site consider to be the difference between an "acceptable" check-my-proof question and an unacceptable such question? (note, they even have a tag for check-my-proof)

Of course you know, my interest is in (finally!) having a venue other than comp.theory to try to get my P vs. NP proofs checked. I don't belong to any elite cliques TCS cliques, and no friends or colleagues that I know know a thing about any of this stuff. So although I realize that some people find P vs. NP attempts annoying, I am quite serious about suggesting that CS.SE should be a venue for proofs--even "crank-friendly" proofs.

Thanks for reading. Yes, this was part question and part my own opinion--I hope that is okay. I hope that moderators and others will decide to make CS.SE a home for a broader class of proof checks. Maybe there should be some sort of upper bound on the length of the proof? Or other constraints to prevent abuse of the system (e.g., 1 proof a month, maximum)?

(And for anyone who cares, I already realized that the proof I posted before was wrong or at least incomplete/inadequate.)

I've read this, and also run into the unpleasant situation of having my proof that I wanted to get checked closed as "not constructive."

I realize that a lot of people consider P vs. NP a "crank subject." In my own mind, at least, I am not a crank, in the sense that I have some training in mathematics and am aware of what the difference between a correct and incorrect proof is. (See some of my old posts under my other profile if you need evidence that I'm not totally incompetent.)

My question is: Given that there are other proofs, including NP = coNP proofs that are trivially wrong (but good questions nonetheless), and that when CStheory.se was just getting started, they said that they might have CS.SE be a proof-checking site for proofs like the ones I seem generate...

What does the site consider to be the difference between an "acceptable" check-my-proof question and an unacceptable such question? (note, they even have a tag for check-my-proof)

Of course you know, my interest is in (finally!) having a venue other than comp.theory to try to get my P vs. NP proofs checked. I don't belong to any elite cliques TCS cliques, and no friends or colleagues that I know know a thing about any of this stuff. So although I realize that some people find P vs. NP attempts annoying, I am quite serious about suggesting that CS.SE should be a venue for proofs--even "crank-friendly" proofs.

Thanks for reading. Yes, this was part question and part my own opinion--I hope that is okay. I hope that moderators and others will decide to make CS.SE a home for a broader class of proof checks. Maybe there should be some sort of upper bound on the length of the proof? Or other constraints to prevent abuse of the system (e.g., 1 proof a month, maximum)?

(And for anyone who cares, I already realized that the proof I posted before was wrong or at least incomplete/inadequate.)

I've read this, and also run into the unpleasant situation of having my proof that I wanted to get checked closed as "not constructive."

I realize that a lot of people consider P vs. NP a "crank subject." In my own mind, at least, I am not a crank, in the sense that I have some training in mathematics and am aware of what the difference between a correct and incorrect proof is. (See some of my old posts under my other profile if you need evidence that I'm not totally incompetent.)

My question is: Given that there are other proofs, including NP = coNP proofs that are trivially wrong (but good questions nonetheless), and that when CStheory.se was just getting started, they said that they might have CS.SE be a proof-checking site for proofs like the ones I seem generate...

What does the site consider to be the difference between an "acceptable" check-my-proof question and an unacceptable such question? (note, they even have a tag for check-my-proof)

Of course you know, my interest is in (finally!) having a venue other than comp.theory to try to get my P vs. NP proofs checked. I don't belong to any elite cliques TCS cliques, and no friends or colleagues that I know know a thing about any of this stuff. So although I realize that some people find P vs. NP attempts annoying, I am quite serious about suggesting that CS.SE should be a venue for proofs--even "crank-friendly" proofs.

Thanks for reading. Yes, this was part question and part my own opinion--I hope that is okay. I hope that moderators and others will decide to make CS.SE a home for a broader class of proof checks. Maybe there should be some sort of upper bound on the length of the proof? Or other constraints to prevent abuse of the system (e.g., 1 proof a month, maximum)?

(And for anyone who cares, I already realized that the proof I posted before was wrong or at least incomplete/inadequate.)