9
$\begingroup$

There is a paper that was published 15 years ago; one of the theorems in it is wrong in general. A few years ago some people told the author that this theorem is wrong as stated, but yet a partial case of it is true and is quite sufficient for the proof of the main result of the paper. Certainly, it was too late to correct the paper itself; yet its current arXiv version contains a short notice that it should be corrected.

Now, I proved a (new) corrected and extended version of the wrong result mentioned. My method of the proof has benefited significantly from the 'wrong proof'. So, what should I do (in order not to offend the authors of the paper mentioned)? I have the following ideas.

  1. Avoid citing the 'partially wrong' paper. Actually, my result is not something very much unexpected, and the proof is rather short and easy; I could have found it without reading the 'wrong' paper.

  2. Cite the printed version of the paper, and tell the reader that the result mentioned is wrong as stated? In this situation I definitely would like to say that this result is wrong, since if I do not do so, nobody will understand why my correction is interesting. As is often the case, the wrong result looks nicer than the correct one.:)

  3. Cite the current arXiv version. The problem is that it contains a notice that a revision is necessary, but no revision is made.

  4. Ask the author(s) of the paper to put a corrected version of it to the arXiv. In this situation, is it ok to tell the authors that I do not want to cite the printed version of the paper as well as the current arXiv version?

If I choose possibilities 3 and 4, should I explain somehow (in my preprint) why I cite the arXiv version and not the printed one?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 17
    $\begingroup$ Cite the published version and the fact that you were guided by the proof given in it. Mention briefly that the stated theorem is not correct (and, if it's easy to do, explain why or give a reference where the explanation is given). $\endgroup$
    – Deane Yang
    Feb 29, 2012 at 9:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is similar to the situation in the MathOverflow question "How Do I Fix Somone's Published Error?". A key piece of advice given there was to consult mentors or specialists familiar enough with the authors so that there was a chance for a smooth resolution. You may find other advice there useful. Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2012.02.29 $\endgroup$ Feb 29, 2012 at 10:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Deane's suggestion is right. But you should cite both the print and the arxiv version, then the read has all the info. $\endgroup$ Feb 29, 2012 at 13:27
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ One general principle here is that you have an obligation to cite any source that gave you assistance, even if you are confident you could have done it without the assistance, and you should cite any source that may interest readers. (For example, it's valuable to know that the original authors acknowledged the problem in the arXiv posting.) $\endgroup$
    – Henry Cohn
    Feb 29, 2012 at 13:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Paraphrasing what Deane has already pointed out: speak the truth! I have often seen papers where people cite an older paper, celebrate it a bit, before mentioning that it had a bug or error, and then proceed to fix it ;-) Your case is more detailed than just that, but also as mentioned by Chris, it helpful to the reader to have all this proper context. $\endgroup$
    – Suvrit
    Feb 29, 2012 at 15:24

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

This question was asked a long time ago, but never received an answer. I largely agree with Deane Yang's comment, but wish to expand on it, for the sake of future visitors to MO.

First, several other questions have been asked regarding how to deal with errors in the published literature:

Diplomacy when reporting errors

How do I fix someone's published error?

Refereeing a paper containing strong statements about other papers

As an author, if you find a mistake in someone else's paper, you should be guided by a combination of ethics, humanity, and what's best for your readers. Remember that the authors of that other paper are human, and almost certainly did not intend to make a mistake. Making a mistake is a nightmare scenario to most mathematicians, so please keep in mind that they are probably embarrassed and might instinctively react in a defensive way.

The first step after finding a mistake is to check your work with someone else, and be sure you can explain exactly where the mistake occurs. Even better if you can produce a counterexample to the wrong statement, or a correction to the proof (possibly by changing the hypotheses and/or conclusion of the statement). Next, you should contact the authors. It's best to do this diplomatically, guided by the advice above. As a professional courtesy, it's best if they can learn about their mistake from you in a personalized email, rather than from a new preprint on arXiv. If you are very junior, your advisor can also help here. In the case of the OP, the authors already knew of their mistake, and had already written text showing that the main conclusion was still true, even if the proof had a flaw. Still, I would write to them to let them know I'd be drawing attention to that proof, but I'd frame it positively, by pointing out that I was building on their work and had figured out a way to get some mileage out of their original proof. This thread might be relevant:

Contacting an eminent mathematician

In terms of writing your paper, it's always best to think about what's best for your reader. In this case, clearly the reader needs to have a reference to the "partially wrong" version because that's where the wrong proof is written, which you build on. It's also clear that you should cite the arXiv version where the error is acknowledged. This is important for the reader to not be misled (since the "partially wrong" paper lacks a published erratum) and also for the sake of your referee, to point out that the authors have already acknowledged their error, so the referee doesn't need to check that part of your claims. Lastly, if you think the current state of the literature is unclear, this is your chance to clarify it, e.g., by explaining exactly what's wrong in the wrong proof, why the special case is still true (if this is not explained in the latest arXiv version), why that's sufficient for the original claimed result (if that's not explained in the latest arXiv version), and what if anything all this has to do with your result. Cleaning up the literature is a service for everyone.

The OP didn't ask for examples, but I'll give some anyway, because it's actually fairly common to come across papers with errors. As discussed in this answer, one of my earliest papers had to contend with an erroneous claim. It was important to do so because my paper could be viewed in some sense as correcting that error. Fortunately, the author had already acknowledged it (on MathOverflow, and I cited the relevant thread). Another situation happened not long after, when I needed a result from someone else's paper which they had recently written a corrigendum for. I cited both the published paper and corrigendum. I know of another case where people cite both the published paper and the correction. Lastly, I just read a case today, posted to arXiv yesterday (Appendix D), that does a great job spelling out why a cited proof is not quite correct, but how to fix it up.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.