Timeline for Are theoretically incorrect answers allowed if it's (near) impossible to find incorrect inputs?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 11, 2016 at 20:49 | comment | added | user45941 | @PeterTaylor I also like that way of looking at it. I would be in support of either method for dealing with answers that are valid assuming a certain outcome of an open question. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 20:46 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | @Mego, the burden of proof should be on the person claiming to have a valid answer. If their answer is only valid assuming some conjecture (even if it's the Riemann hypothesis or P != NP) then they should first ask in a comment on the question whether that conjecture may be assumed. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 20:05 | comment | added | user45941 | @PhiNotPi I would say that an answer is valid unless it can be proven invalid (not necessarily with a constructive proof). Since an answer that depends on the twin prime conjecture being true cannot be proven invalid without also disproving the twin prime conjecture (and if you disprove that, why are you on PPCG instead of making a lot of money?), the answer is valid. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 18:57 | comment | added | PhiNotPi | +1 I think this is generally the way to go, even if it makes probabilistic primality tests invalid. Although, I wonder the the policy should be when an open mathematical problem is involved. For example, I think "this program works iff the twin prime conjecture is correct" should be allowed. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 17:40 | history | answered | AdmBorkBork | CC BY-SA 3.0 |