[orbifold]

I really don’t understand why you would criticize the article for writing about elementary ideas like symmetry over and over again only to write your own introduction. Also your characterization of the Langlands program is completely off.

[onecommentman]

Then write your own better version.

I’ve never heard much of the formal Langlands program, but vaguely read some material on it over the decades. I’d be in a position to have tripped over a good, mathematically sophisticated introduction/summary, and I haven’t read one. The poster’s description is in line with the general tone of what I’ve read in the past, and it is well-written and thoughtful. Your comment is low effort.

I’d propose, if you actually understand the program well enough to critique, to contribute something to convince the rest of us that it is a worthwhile intellectual endeavor. By doing that, making one small step in addressing the issue of the non-existence of communications, as contrasted with documentation, as a core element of the profession of mathematics.

[concreteblock]

> I’d propose, if you actually understand the program well enough to critique, to contribute something to convince the rest of us that it is a worthwhile intellectual endeavor.

What if the commenter doesn't have time or expertise to do that? Isn't it better to at least state that the OP wrote something very inaccurate? Or should we just give up and let the misconceptions propogate?