No, they're on topic, as long as you specify that it is a monte-carlo algorithm. Ideally, you'd specify the probability of success, but doing so is optional.
Why? Because the code isn't broken; it's doing exactly as stated.
Asking us to fix a monte-carlo algorithm to be perfect is off-topic however.
Looking at your example: It's lacking context as to why ...
Is code included directly in my question? Yes
Am I an owner or maintainer of the code? Yes
Is it actual code from a project rather than pseudo-code or example code? Yes
Do I want the code to be good code? Yes
To the best of my knowledge, does the code work? (See below)
Do I want feedback about any or all facets of the code? Yes
The culprit is: ...
Reviewers are indeed various degrees of pedantic, so this question isn't completely crazy.
Using the correct words in proper context ensures that we can be understood, and that is the goal of all communications: that the receiver processes the information the way the emitter meant it to be.
In the case of parameters vs arguments, my understanding is that a ...
I agree. That small change in wording will make a significant difference, but the part about "for your specific project" makes it a little unclear. I would recommend the change...
Best practices and design pattern usage
Application of best practices and design patterns
The original text of a post is valuable because it gives us clues as to the background and level of expertise of the poster, and these help us to judge the way we present the review. For example, a poster who is confused about terminology may be a student or beginner, and this could suggest that it would be best to pitch the review at an introductory level.
Deleted my previous answer, it does not actually address your question....
I noticed the likely reason was vaguely stated:
To the best of my knowledge, does the code work?
Is it work as intended, or run without errors?
Neither. It is somewhat intentionally loose. Defining exactly what 'working code' is will never be successful. What's ...
Q&A for getting reviews on your own working code
Looking at the short descriptions for other sites, they all start with:
Q&A for 'type of person'
To be similar our should not say "... for reviews": it should say "... for software developers", or "... for programmers". 'Software developers' is a bit ...
There seems to be some confusion about what we mean by broken. For some of us, it's natural that it means code that does not work as intended, but it seems like other users of the site are having problems understanding this particular word.
Broken means more than just "does not work as intended".
I have a spade, which I can use.
It's not broken. It just doesn't produce the right answer.
That is broken. Code which compiles or code which is accepted by an interpreter is not necessarily doing what it should be doing. If "broken" isn't the correct term, what is?
However, for clarification, we could add the question:
Is your code working as intended?
Which is unambiguous. Keep in ...
Yeah, the comment "your question is a duplicate so we closed it, please ask again" doesn't make any sense in its current form. However, let's keep in mind that the situation is quite hypothetical, because as @rolfl said it too,
legitimate duplicates are extremely rare on Code Review,
and I don't think that's going to change in the foreseeable future.
Really, this question is redundant. Code Review should have no duplicates (I wonder how many it actually has?).
Code Review is very strict on what is defined as a duplicate. To qualify, the code is essentially identical on each question - this is rare, indeed.
Now, why does this make this meta question redundant? Because if there really are duplicates, ...
In one sentence: I think on Code Review labeling something as a duplicate should be done sparingly.
I think this touches on a greater "problem," however, in that a strict interpretation of the StackExchange ethos would say that posts must ask a question, and in response, one answer must rise to the top as "the" answer. I will add that I don't really think ...
If you're specifically asking about the wording of the close reason, then no, I don't think it is broken. The reason reads like this.
Questions containing broken code or asking for advice about code not yet written are off-topic, as the code is not ready for review. After the question has been edited to contain working code, we will consider reopening it.
To the best of my knowledge, does the code work?
Does the code produce correct output? If not, your question might belong on Stack Overflow.
What we perhaps really would like to say:
Does your code have the features you want it to have and produce the result you want it to?
If you want to fix or change what your ...
Code works when it does that which was intended in full and nothing more, not containing errors for the original expected input domain, with the exclusion of issues caused by external factors such as memory limitations.
See https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2536/49350 for a full explanation of this statement.