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 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.)
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.
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.