Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In 2009 Mihailescu published a proof of the famous Leopoldt conjecture on the arxiv. Later on, in 2011, he published a 'lightweight' version that proves the conjecture for CM fields. Also compare

Is the Leopoldt conjecture almost always true?

But as far as I can see from MathSciNet, none of his papers has been published in any math journal. So here are my questions:

  1. Has anybody information if Mihailescu intends to get his proof printed in some math journal or if it's destined solely to the arxiv (like Perelman has done) ?

  2. In his obituary for Leopoldt from 10.01.2012, Roquette mentions in a footnote, "recently Mihailescu has announced a proof of Leopoldt's conjecture for all number fields". Is this a new announcement or refers Roquette to Mihailescu's 2009 paper ?

  3. What's the current status of the Leopoldt conjecture ?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by quid, Daniel Moskovich, Felipe Voloch, Noah Snyder, David Loeffler Jun 18 '12 at 7:37

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

2  
In view of the answer to the question linked to I vote to close this. Alos, there seems to be no clear motivation for this question beyond general interest. –  quid Jun 17 '12 at 0:08
2  
@quid: It may be of interest to someone who wants to attack Leopoldt conjecture himself. To the OP: regarding 1., have you tried emailing Mihailescu? –  Kevin Ventullo Jun 17 '12 at 4:08
1  
I went to considerable lengths to argue for some question like this to stay open on other occassions; this one seems purely gossip-y and we know that the author is not keen on this discussion to happen on MO. Also, 1. IMO is an inapropriate question to ask. 2. should be best asked to Roquette (though I guess if he did not add details he meant the one everybody knows about), and for 3. well most likely as a coupele of month ago. –  quid Jun 17 '12 at 8:35
1  
I think that a question on the status of Leopoldt's conjecture might be appropriate and even interesting if carefully formulated. However, I agree with quid that question 1 is extremely inappropriate: submission and rejection should not be public, only acceptance should. –  Olivier Jun 17 '12 at 20:20
10  
I think if someone publishes a paper in the internet, saying I'm the one who proved this important conjecture, then it's no longer his private affair. He then has to reckon that people start asking about the work's approval status. Moreover if an important proof is sent to a journal with high reputation then it should be possible to decide within 3 years if it's correct or if there are gaps. Hence the unclear status of Mihailescu's work is unsatisfying. But I agree that it's up to him to give information about the approval status - that shouldn't be done by /asked to third parties. –  KBuck Jun 18 '12 at 6:54