Compared to this, the rigid approach adopted in Math Overflow to close any discussion on the issue seems so 19th century. See the discussion here: http://meta.mathoverflow.net/discussion/590/
I think the stance taken by MathOverflow is correct. It would be one thing if that were the only venue to have a discussion about the proof validity possible but there exist much better discussion mediums. The linked blog is a case in point. MathOverflow is geared towards being a Q&A site.
Totally agree. MO seems to enforce an rigid, sanitary culture for precise question and answering. Perfect approach to mathematical discovery and enlightenment.
I always found the process of discovery (when you are working stuff out on your own) to be quite messy. You clean up only after you have found your way.
For discovery by reading another one's work, I agree that cleanliness helps. (That's one of the reasons to clean up your work in the first place.)
I wouldn't trust a (relatively new, correct?) Q&A site with commenting on research-level work, at least not above the level of informal chat. While outsiders, id est people largely not acquainted with the subject at hand or lacking the expertise, can provide a fresh perspective, I would not expect the benefits from a discussion on such a high-level to outweigh the potential distractions and/or misguided approaches. Let alone other issues that arise with discussing unpublished work.
On the other hand, a discussion in the spirit of "what are the concepts behind this proof?", or "what are the implications if this proof is correct/wrong?", or even "what is the approach of this proof? what are the pitfalls associated with such a process?" are excellent ways of disseminating knowledge and educating about the subject a) without having to resort to the few experts on the field and b) keeping the content in line with the principles of a Q&A site.
You don't sound familiar with MathOverflow: it is for research level questions in mathematics, and for the most part lives up to that purpose.
The reason I wouldn't want to read about this paper there is that the MathOverflow users don't seem to include many computer scientists; they are mostly mathematicians who work in non-computery areas of math.
In other words, I would go to MathOverflow for comments on a breakthrough paper in certain areas, just not this one.
Compared to this, the rigid approach adopted in Math Overflow to close any discussion on the issue seems so 19th century. See the discussion here: http://meta.mathoverflow.net/discussion/590/