most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net 2013-05-19T07:29:09Z http://mathoverflow.net/feeds/user/30191 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdf http://mathoverflow.net/questions/38274/what-are-the-shapes-of-rational-functions/118905#118905 Karl Luttinger 2013-01-14T17:19:02Z 2013-01-14T17:19:02Z

<p>The algorithmic unsolvability of the general polynomial equation of degree greater than 4 implies that this is not possible in the general case. </p>

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/105370/when-does-a-hypersurface-have-contact-type/117789#117789 Karl Luttinger 2013-01-01T17:04:29Z 2013-01-01T17:04:29Z

<p>The condition is clearly quite restricting however it is obvious that no effective proceedure could exist to determine if a hypersurface is or is not of contact type.</p>

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/87674/independent-evidence-for-the-classification-of-topological-4-manifolds/117144#117144 Karl Luttinger 2012-12-24T13:47:37Z 2012-12-24T13:47:37Z

<p>There is no other evidence. In fact there is absolutely no evidence what so ever. I have never met a mathematician who could convince me that he or she understood Freedman`s proof. I attempted to read that monstrosity of a paper a number of times by myself and quite a few times with a group of other mathematicians. We never were able to finish checking all of the details. Such seminars always ended before we could make it through even half of his paper. No other expositions on the subject seem to be any better. It is truely an odd state of affairs that after all of these years no one has managed to write a clear exposition of this so called proof,and that no one seems to question the claim that there ever was a proof. I remember thinking as a young mathematician either this "proof" is sheer nonsense or someone will eventually write out a clear and detailed explanation. As of April of 2011 I have understood that the so called proof is full of errors and they can not be fixed. I mentioned this to several mathematicians during the summer of 2011 and I believe these conversations are directly linked to the dialogue seen here on math overflow.</p>

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/87674/independent-evidence-for-the-classification-of-topological-4-manifolds/117144#117144 Karl Luttinger 2012-12-27T17:57:46Z 2012-12-27T17:57:46Z

Freedman&#180;s arguement is critically flawed and the work can not be salvaged. Your seminar is a waste of time! How much more time must mathematicians waste on this foolishness? I find your suggestion that &quot;people should hold fire on this thread until after the Bonn semester is done&quot; idiotic.