Timeline for On 'A proof of ABC conjecture after Mochizuki' [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2017 at 7:22 | history | closed |
Lucia Timothy Chow coudy Yemon Choi Jan-Christoph Schlage-Puchta |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Aug 31, 2017 at 20:09 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a question that should be sent directly to the author of the paper being asked about. | |
| Aug 31, 2017 at 19:40 | comment | added | user75426 | @Lucia, thank you for your comment. I'm not really asking about correctness. I'm just surprised that the preprint didn't appear on the RIMS Preprints server, so I wondered if it is actually intended for publication. The second question is maybe more focussed ad it's about defining the scope of a long paper since the abstract doesn't address it clearly in my opinion. | |
| Aug 31, 2017 at 18:13 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 1, 2017 at 7:22 | |||||
| Aug 31, 2017 at 17:58 | comment | added | Lucia | I'm voting to close this on the basis of the Meta discussion on what is suitable for MO: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/927/… . Is there a real focussed question here? | |
| Aug 31, 2017 at 16:19 | comment | added | Samantha Y | An aggressive footnote! How bizarre | |
| Aug 31, 2017 at 13:30 | comment | added | nfdc23 | The first question is too speculative. As for the 2nd, it is clearly a serious effort at a surveying a large amount of work in a more limited amount of space, and beyond saying that one probably gets into the realm of "opinion on a preprint" which isn't meant to be a focus for MO questions. Anyway, the footnote at the bottom of page 6 is interesting. | |
| Aug 31, 2017 at 13:11 | history | asked | user75426 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |