User blog comment:Boboris02/Large number combinatorics II:Trying to prove something interesting/@comment-30118230-20170204183225/@comment-30754445-20170205091645

"Yes, I used ≺,≻,⊥,⊤ and ,yes,they are not part of standart mathematical language.....and so what?They are well-defined mathematical symbols,so I don't see a way in which they are a problem. "

The problem is that you haven't defined these symbols in your own post. Are we supposed to guess what they mean? Infer it, somehow, from the way you use them? If that's the case, then you might as well use ordinary English. It would be just as ambiguous, but at least it would be easier to follow.

It is also odd that at some points you go into considerable length stating the obvious (for example: N⊆Q⇔Q⊇N∧N⊂Q⇔Q⊃N) and at other points you make obscure leaps without explanation (presumably under the assumption that they are - somehow - too "obvious" to require one).

BTW LP wasn't "nitpicking" or "hiding behind" anything. He openly stated that he doesn't understand what you're doing, and went into considerable length explaining what his problems were. Not sure why you have a beef with that. After all, you do want us to discuss your work, right? And we can't discuss your work if we have no clue what's going on, right?

(and as you said yourself, LP is an expert on these things. So if he openly states that he doesn't "get it", then you should at least consider the possibility that the problem is in your presentation and not him being willfully dense)