His average is above the average user https://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/1467873

If we use votes as a proxy for helpfulness, I'd argue most were "validated" by the community for helpfulness.

"Correctness" is subjective and unprovable.

> "Correctness" is subjective and unprovable.

Can you clarify how literally you mean that?

Because a statement like "1+1=3" objectively incorrect, given the usual conventions about what I would mean with that equation.

With SQL, there are many different ways to write a query and to get the correct result returned to you. Instead of "1+1=2" being the only answer, it'd be more like: "1+1=2", "2+0=2", and "0+2=2". All are correct.

In my experience on SO with both SQL and Python, there are usually a number of correct answers for every question. How correct it is depends on things that usually aren't in the question: size of the data set, dependencies or processes that may break as a result of answer, etc.

It’s easy to show that something is incorrect, because it doesn’t meet the base requirements of the question posed, or correct because it does.

It’s difficult to show a correct answer is good, or the best, for the question. Many answers you find on SO both provide a correct answer, as well as try to defend against and call out potential pitfalls and assumptions. Many answers also achieve at best “technically correct”, giving something that works, but slow, error-prone, inelegant, and really just a Bad Idea.

Technically correct is mostly a waste of time, unless nothing better exists. If this user is just technically correct (he’s probably not constantly wrong because he has more points than answers), then he’s ultimately not much better than your regular shitposter.

"1+1=3" is only incorrect in the standard accepted definition of arithmetic. That is inherently the subjective part. Nothing prevents people from using different math system. At the very least, I could say 1+1=10 in binary and you have to concede that you need to add more caveats to your statement. The other form of subjectivity is that style/performance/complexity is always considered for programming and the tradeoff is always subjective.

Math is objective, not subjective, which is why 1+1=3 is incorrect, not just a violation of my preferences.

Binary is not a different math system. It's the same math system with the same rules but a different radix. 1+1 does not equal ten in binary. It still equals 2. You're just using a different notation for the same concept of two. The substance of the thing is not identical to how you signify it, which is why you can write "two", "2", "II", "2r10", ...all of which signify the same abstraction.

You are kind of proving my point. You just defined 10 to be "two" by establishing which base you are using. Thus, notation is subjective based on the author's desires. But, my argument was not even that. My argument was that 2 comes before 3 is not a universal law of math. That was chosen (subjectively) by humans.