Timeline for Is it ok to ask about the correctness of preprints on crank-friendly topics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 16, 2011 at 23:31 | history | notice removed | Kaveh | ||
| Nov 16, 2011 at 23:31 | history | notice added | Kaveh | Historical significance | |
| Nov 16, 2011 at 23:31 | history | locked | Kaveh | ||
| Sep 8, 2010 at 17:24 | comment | added | Charles Stewart | If the preprint's proof has a mistake or hole or ambiguity in it, the proof doesn't work. If the author says it can be fixed, then they can go off and revise their paper. If the author denies that the hole is there, well ... "discussion" can be closed down. The nice thing about talking about proofs is that the criterion of acceptability is pretty firmly established. | |
| Sep 7, 2010 at 22:43 | comment | added | Jukka Suomela | We could also try to have something in our FAQ that covers the most common case. For example, the answer to "is the community aware of paper X in ArXiv" is virtually always "yes". | |
| Sep 7, 2010 at 22:41 | comment | added | Jukka Suomela | Perhaps we could try to have the following policy in order to "play safe" and to avoid using this site for something for which it's not suitable: it is ok to give pointers to discussion elsewhere, but let's avoid giving new information (new opinions) here? With this policy it'd also make sense to CW this kind of questions. | |
| Sep 7, 2010 at 22:30 | history | answered | Suresh VenkatMod | CC BY-SA 2.5 |