Timeline for Complex structure on $S^6$ gets published in Journ. Math. Phys
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
48 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:44 | vote | accept | Misha Verbitsky | ||
| May 23, 2017 at 12:44 | |||||
| Oct 31, 2016 at 22:37 | comment | added | janmarqz | only time will tell | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 18:02 | comment | added | Deane Yang | According to some experts I've consulted, there is a lot of skepticism of Atiyah's proof. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 6:35 | comment | added | Arctic Char | FYI: A proof was posted by Atiyah on arvix Five days ago! | |
| Sep 9, 2015 at 3:23 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Etesi has posted a new preprint that extracts (most of) the purely mathematical content from his published paper: arxiv.org/abs/1509.02300 (In it he explicitly thanks the MO community for discussions.) | |
| Jul 13, 2015 at 11:25 | answer | added | vonTuzzentahler | timeline score: 21 | |
| Jul 10, 2015 at 15:55 | vote | accept | Misha Verbitsky | ||
| May 23, 2017 at 12:40 | |||||
| Jul 9, 2015 at 14:28 | answer | added | vonTuzzentahler | timeline score: 52 | |
| Jul 7, 2015 at 13:43 | comment | added | Will Sawin | @YangMills based on the discussion in the meta thread, a question about this specific claim in the paper would be on-topic for MO, and contacting the author and asking them about it might be a good idea. | |
| Jun 29, 2015 at 8:27 | comment | added | YangMills | I am quite worried by the fact that the subbundle $H\subset TG_2$ that the author defines is not integrable. Just before (13) the author says that the Levi-Civita connection $\nabla_0$ preserves the splitting $TG_2=V\oplus H$, but this would certainly imply that $H$ is closed under Lie bracket. | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 18:21 | comment | added | user9072 | @RobertBryant but the question originally said OP read it 10 years ago. So it ought to have been another version, the first likely. I assume the reply is about that version not the current one. | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 15:22 | comment | added | Robert Bryant | @AndréHenriques: Note, though, that the web page for the current arXiv version states that this version (Version 7) is the published version. | |
| Jun 26, 2015 at 23:59 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 27, 2015 at 8:45 | |||||
| Jun 26, 2015 at 19:04 | history | reopened |
alvarezpaiva Daniel Moskovich Lucia Ben Wieland Ricardo Andrade |
||
| Jun 26, 2015 at 13:33 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jun 26, 2015 at 19:04 | |||||
| Jun 26, 2015 at 10:42 | comment | added | André Henriques | I have communicated with Etesi. He claims that the published paper is essentially all new material, and that it has very little in common with the previous (flawed) preprint. | |
| Jun 26, 2015 at 10:02 | history | closed |
Boris Bukh user9072 Yoav Kallus Ryan Budney André Henriques |
Opinion-based | |
| Jun 26, 2015 at 10:02 | comment | added | André Henriques | I agree with the last comment of Todd Trimble, and I would like to see Misha Verbitsky comment/expand on the specific errors that were present in the earlier versions. I would also like him to comment on whether or not those errors have been addressed/corrected in the present published version. I shall now cast the last closing vote. I hope that the question will be edited, at which point, I will vote to reopen. | |
| Jun 26, 2015 at 7:46 | comment | added | user25199 | The question as currently formulated claims that JMP is a "physics" not a "mathematics" journal (and not both). Given that all five editor's picks currently on the journal home page use a definition-lemma-theorem format, the editors and authors (of which I am not one) may disagree with this characterisation. Since the referees of even the most highly reputable non-physical mathematics journals are not infallible, I suspect the issue of the journal is a red herring and that the question would be better focused on specifics of the mathematical substance. | |
| Jun 26, 2015 at 2:07 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Professor Verbitsky: I don't know whether you've been following the meta discussion, but there seems to be growing consensus that the question might still be improved if you could perhaps relate, within the body of this question, some of the specific mathematical concerns you had which originally led to asking this question (concerns you alluded to before the edits). Many believe it is best practice for MathOverflow, and perhaps all the more so when asking questions about correctness of a paper, to pinpoint precise mathematical issues. Many thanks for your understanding. | |
| Jun 26, 2015 at 1:44 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @AndréHenriques that I feel is a productive approach, as long as it it contained to addressing specifics, and not allowed to run on and on -- this isn't a forum for convincing people the published version is correct. | |
| Jun 26, 2015 at 1:13 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Linked to journal version, and changed arXiv link to current (v7) version.
|
| Jun 25, 2015 at 22:49 | comment | added | Deane Yang | Misha, I don't really want to push this back towards you, but there probably aren't a lot of other people who are in a better position than you to judge the correctness of this paper. Especially since you already looked at an earlier version. | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 20:59 | history | edited | Todd Trimble | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed suggestion of 'infamy' out of courtesy to the paper's author
|
| Jun 25, 2015 at 20:38 | comment | added | Misha Verbitsky | I apologize for being overly blunt (and thanks to those who pointed this out). The question is edited. For the record, I said "I have read it when it first appeared in arxiv 10 years ago, there were not very subtle errors then. Is it still wrong? " | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 20:37 | history | edited | Misha Verbitsky | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 49 characters in body
|
| Jun 25, 2015 at 17:18 | comment | added | André Henriques | I have informed Gabor Etesi about this MO discussion. I have also encouraged him to comment on the differences between the first version of his paper from 10 years ago, and the current published version. | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 14:51 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 25, 2015 at 16:28 | |||||
| Jun 25, 2015 at 14:05 | history | reopened |
Dan Petersen Eric Wofsey Joonas Ilmavirta Francesco Polizzi Andrey Rekalo |
||
| Jun 25, 2015 at 12:49 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | I've opened up a discussion at meta: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2328/… Please consider upvoting this comment for visibility. | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 12:15 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jun 25, 2015 at 14:05 | |||||
| Jun 25, 2015 at 12:14 | comment | added | Eric Wofsey | @LiviuNicolaescu: I agree that this question should be open, but comparing its closure to "censorship" is ridiculous and is only likely to derail the discussion. The fact that MO is not considered to be the correct forum for certain questions is not censorship. | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 11:33 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Better to also give a link to the published version, dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4918540, if an when this question is edited for improvement. | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 8:57 | history | closed |
Joseph O'Rourke András Bátkai Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen Anthony Quas Stefan Kohl♦ |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 7:40 | comment | added | Liviu Nicolaescu | The question raised is a valid one, though it could be slightly edited to sound less confrontational. Closing this discussion, would do a great disservice to the math community and smacks of censorship. | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 1:51 | comment | added | pro | If the experts in the field (such as MV) don't buy the paper, how does it even stand a chance? I can only see two outcomes here. Either someone answers confirming there are still flaws in the proof, and we are left with the status quo, where the reputation of the author is unchanged (same outcome if no answers are received). Or someone answers vouching for the paper. Now wouldn't this be great? Someone like MV will then actually take time to read the paper, if he finds it correct he'll also vouch for it. And, there you go, the author has the reputation he very well deserves! | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 1:50 | comment | added | pro | @GerhardPaseman I disagree and I think you are missing the point. I would also be against some random dude trying to undermine a random paper written by some random dude (or worse, a random grad student). Here we are talking about a paper claiming to prove a big conjecture. If correct, this deserves to be published in a top mathematical journal, not a physics journal. We are talking about a paper which has had a bad reputation for ten years now. (continued below) | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 1:14 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | The basic intent, of finding out whether the paper is correct, is indeed of interest. That does not mean that it is appropriate for MathOverflow, just as conjectural discussion of Mochizuki's proof of the ABC conjecture and other examples are not appropriate. The previous questions address some of the mathematics and reasons for why the statement might be true or false. The question here does not, and can be viewed as damaging to the author and (more importantly) to MathOverflow. I don't challenge the intent so much as the form. Gerhard "Maybe I Should Just Edit" Paseman, 2015.06.24 | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 1:04 | comment | added | pro | I honestly don't understand these comments. The person who posted the question is one of the leading experts in hyperkahler geometry worldwide. He is trying to understand whether the community has changed opinion regarding a paper he himself has already read and found incorrect a long time ago. It would be beneficial for the entire mathematical community to understand the status of the claimed result. (that being said, one might encourage the OP to rephrase the question so that it appears more polite and kind towards the author) | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 1:04 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Previous discussion at mathoverflow.net/questions/1973/… | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 0:02 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 25, 2015 at 8:57 | |||||
| Jun 24, 2015 at 23:39 | comment | added | Joseph O'Rourke | I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because: I agree with Gerhard that it is inappropriate to discuss the flaws in a paper in a public forum. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 23:01 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Using arXiv trackbacks, one finds other questions and comments on MathOverflow that may be useful in gauging the quality of this paper. If I were the author, I would prefer someone pointing out a specific problem in the current version rather than pointing to older versions and suggesting that insufficient improvements had been made. Gerhard "Treat Authors With Respect Too" Paseman, 2015.06.24 | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 22:46 | comment | added | Tobias Kildetoft | Why don't you read the newest version yourself and see if the errors are still there? The paper has been updated a lot of times in those 10 years. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 22:44 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | At this current writing, the question is not of the quality I would like to see on MathOverflow. It renders a subjective opinion which may be correct but I will not know without doing some extensive effort. Francesco, If I recall a preprint of yours from ten years ago, and notice a recent publication of a similar paper by you, how appropriate is it for me to publicly claim "Ten years ago it needed a lot of work; can it possibly have gotten publishable?" MathOverflow is not for critiquing papers; it is for answering questions. Gerhard "Let's Not Talk About Publishers" Paseman, 2015.06.24 | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 22:38 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | I do not think it is the wrong forum. This is not a preprint, it is a peer-reviewed and published paper claiming to solve a very famous and long-standing problem. It is completely natural to wonder whether it is actually correct or not. At any rate, I agree that the question could be improved. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 22:28 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | This is the wrong forum for your question. This kind of question falls in my view to discussing of preprints. If you find a particular error and want confirmation of that error, you might ask about that specific detail. I would avoid editorializing or commenting on the quality of the paper; it should be enough to get people to recognize a serious defect in the paper, if one exists. Gerhard "Treat All Papers With Respect" Paseman, 2015.06.24 | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 22:20 | history | asked | Misha Verbitsky | CC BY-SA 3.0 |