Timeline for How to refer to a “theorem” that you have shown to be wrong
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22 at 16:06 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Sep 23, 2023 at 9:24 | history | edited | Joachim Breitner | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Sep 22, 2023 at 21:57 | answer | added | Michael Hardy | timeline score: 0 | |
| Feb 3, 2019 at 19:22 | answer | added | Jean Van Schaftingen | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 8, 2013 at 10:44 | vote | accept | Joachim Breitner | ||
| Apr 6, 2013 at 17:44 | comment | added | François G. Dorais | I usually expect conjectures to turn out true (but I am sometimes disappointed). | |
| Apr 6, 2013 at 16:30 | comment | added | Toink | how about "conjecture"? | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 17:00 | answer | added | Angelo | timeline score: 47 | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 14:52 | comment | added | François G. Dorais | I don't know the exact context and Joachim is probably already doing this, but I want to mention that it is customary to indicate how to patch the claimed "theorem". After all, a purported "proof" that has been published is unlikely to be completely wrong, the authors probably missed a hypothesis or failed to verify one part of the conclusion or something like that. Indicating how to fix that and proposing a counterexample to indicate how the patch is necessary is the proper thing to do. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 14:47 | answer | added | Thomas Kahle | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 14:40 | answer | added | Ricky | timeline score: 21 | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 14:24 | comment | added | Lee Mosher | There is a practical matter, which is how to refer to the result in an unambiguous matter. The reproduction you have in mind solves that problem in one way. But another solution is: first state the problem as a question, then say "Paper X states in Theorem 2 that the answer is 'Yes'. We prove here that the answer is 'No' by giving an explicit counterexample." | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 12:58 | comment | added | arsmath | I would go with a neutral term. I suggest "claim". | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 12:53 | comment | added | Michael Joyce | The assertion formerly known as Theorem 2? With some LaTeX work, you could then use the Prince symbol to refer to it in the paper. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 12:27 | answer | added | Todd Trimble | timeline score: 19 | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 12:18 | history | asked | Joachim Breitner | CC BY-SA 3.0 |