-2

What is there about this question that is so bad that I should be blocked from asking questions?

Is Haskell Curry's unconventional way of defining True(x) incorrect?

| |
4

You have been automatically blocked from asking due to a number of badly received questions. This is not about the last question in particular. Also, there is nothing we can do about it. Only you can change this.

To learn more about the automatic question ban and what you can do to lift it, I would like to suggest this help center article.

Essentially, you will have to work on your existing questions (deleted ones do count as well, so deleting a badly received question does not help) so that they are better received and you reach a certain "score" which automatically lifts the ban and allows you to ask questions once again. How this score is calculated and where the threshold lies is not known to anyone but the developers so that the knowledge cannot be exploited.

Circumventing the question ban by using sockpuppets (other accounts of yours) will lead to suspensions since the ban is supposed to change behaviour and circumventing interventions by using socks is against the rules.

| |
  • I left a comment under the linked question pointing out why it is not exactly a great one as well. It's just that this has nothing (or few) to do with you being blocked from asking. – Philip Klöcking May 9 at 20:52
  • Can I delete the whole account and start over? – polcott May 10 at 5:41
  • 2
    @polcott This would be considered misuse of sockpuppeting, just as I wrote. – Philip Klöcking May 10 at 6:55
2

Philip addressed why you were blocked. I'll try to address why your question is bad.

Here is an excerpt from your question (as currently formulated):

Is one of these two more correct than the other and why?

(1) A statement can be true and unprovable.

To any user on this site who is familiar with your post history it will seem that you're asking this in bad faith. That's because the standard answer to (1) is "Yes, because of the first incompleteness theorem", and because you have expressed disagreement with this many times on this site. Nothing inherently wrong with your stance on the matter -- but this is why it seems that you're asking this in bad faith.

It's possible that you're not asking this in bad faith even though you're aware of the incompleteness theorems. But if you're looking for a more in-depth answer then your question is too broad to be a good fit here. In that case you should try to narrow it down.

A second problem is that your post is very unclear as a whole. You have a quote from Curry, but you're also asking about something independent from what Curry says. You mention intuitionism based on a comment from a user, but then don't say how intuitionism is related to your question. In general, it's just unclear what one paragraph has to do with another in your post. If you want your question to be readable and clear to others, it's best to make the connections explicit.

Finally, you keep editing and changing your post, currently about 12 times over the course of an hour. Some users may find it annoying and react negatively to your post. It's best if you formulate your question clearly before you post it. If you find that you constantly need to edit your post, that's a sign you should take the time to work on your post before you post it, or before you post a subsequent edit.

| |
  • It seems that the consensus of opinion is that "true is provable" it only a point of view thus making "true and unprovable" also merely a point of view. It does not matter how much reasoning went into the 1931 Incompleteness theorem it still depends upon assumptions that are not necessarily true. – polcott May 9 at 22:25
  • 3
    @polcott And once again you fail to consider and reply to carefully formulated help. Instead, you only restate the point you essentially tried to argue for in your question, which is not what questions are for. They should contain a question proper. This shows two problems: Firstly, you do not care about the rules and expected conduct of the site. Secondly, you do not care about people's replies, arguments, and statements. Both make it impossible to engage with you at any level here. You do not even realise how much you appear like you were unable to see beyond your own forehead, do you? – Philip Klöcking May 10 at 11:55
  • @PhilipKlöcking "Firstly, "you do not care about the rules and expected conduct of the site." I have no idea what you mean about this. – polcott May 10 at 14:18
  • @PhilipKlöcking "Secondly, you do not care about people's replies, arguments, and statements. Both make it impossible to engage with you at any level here." It seems that people are very persistently dodging my question. I think that this may be because I am challenging their fundamental assumptions and they do not even realize that these are assumptions. – polcott May 10 at 14:21
  • @PhilipKlöcking Is there any objective reason why one of these should carry more weight than the other? (1) Truth is provability. (2) A statement can be true and unprovable. There are two forms of correct answers: (a) No (b) Yes and here are the reasons why. Everything else dodges the question. – polcott May 10 at 16:18
  • @PhilipKlöcking When I ask a yes or no question and I do not get (a) Yes (b) No, (c) Yes or No does not apply because of ... Then the question has been dodged. – polcott May 10 at 17:49
  • @polcott When you ask questions in the comments - where they do not belong - you both violate the rules of this site and will have to accept that it is my prerogative to ignore this part and pretend the violation to never have happened. It is actually the nicer way. If you prefer to be warned and eventually suspended for lengthy discussions in comment threads (yes, this explicitly is a reason for suspension)... Also, dodging a question which has a trivial answer is actually encouraged by our guidelines. – Philip Klöcking May 10 at 18:00
  • @PhilipKlöcking "dodging a question which has a trivial answer is actually encouraged by our guidelines" In the specific case in point about the question of the above linked post, that you say that your very persistently dodging this question because it has a trivial answer, I really can't help but construe that as direct dishonesty. Whether or not Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem is a fundamental mathematical principle or merely one of several different perspectives each one carrying the same weight is very certainty not a trivial question. – polcott May 10 at 18:48
  • @PhilipKlöcking So I am being suspended for breaking rules that no one told me about? Was this an intentional and deliberate action by a person or did the system execute the suspension? – polcott May 10 at 18:50
  • @PhilipKlöcking Did you notice that my reputation for the year is almost as high as yours? – polcott May 10 at 19:56
  • 1
    @polcott Firstly, you are not suspended but automatically blocked from asking (you can still answer) by the system, as the answer clearly states. You could just as well have been suspended due to your tendency of discussing in comments. That's what I wrote. Please at least try to read what people write. Secondly, I suppose that if you had a baby born prematurely with less than two pounds to care of, your priorities would mean not getting much reputation on StackExchange as well. That being said, it is fallacious to believe that reputation validates misbehaviour as being ok. – Philip Klöcking May 10 at 20:32
  • @PhilipKlöcking "Please at least try to read what people write" When I ask a yes or no question and all I get is one dodge or another I keep rephrasing that question until I get a yes or a no or a reason why there is no yes or no answer. My reputation is ranked in the top 10% for the year indicating that my knowledge of the subject matter is good. It should not be considered any misbehavior on my part to try to get an answer to a question that everyone insists on dodging. It should be considered misbehavior that people not knowing the answer continue to reply with dodges to my question. – polcott May 10 at 21:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .