Timeline for Propagation of an error in the LMO invariant? (Revision: I don't think LMO is wrong!)
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 23, 2010 at 14:02 | comment | added | Daniel Moskovich | Both preprints have been withdrawn from arXiv. I must say that I am very impressed with Gauthier- as soon as it became clear that there was an error, he acknowledged it and withdrew his preprints. | |
| Nov 23, 2010 at 13:56 | history | edited | Daniel Moskovich | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Gauthier withdrawal
|
| Nov 6, 2010 at 13:08 | vote | accept | Jim Conant | ||
| Nov 6, 2010 at 12:22 | comment | added | Greg Kuperberg | @Jim - Let me suggest accepting Dror's answer as provisionally correct. Also, my point was not that this MathOverflow posting was bad; actually it's fine. Rather, I meant to say that Gauthier shared his thoughts in completely the wrong way. | |
| Nov 6, 2010 at 10:44 | comment | added | Jim Conant | Greg, some people have communicated with Gauthier, but I certainly agree that this mathoverflow post is not generating anything productive anymore. | |
| Nov 6, 2010 at 8:21 | comment | added | Greg Kuperberg | I am not expert in the details of all of this, but I have noticed one thing as a bystander: Not enough direct communication between Gauthier and the people whose work he criticizes or who criticize his work. His advisor is Soibelman, who is highly respected. Maybe he can help move the debate to a more efficient and more private forum. Because, so far the debate has only been interesting for negative reasons. | |
| Nov 2, 2010 at 9:43 | comment | added | Jim Conant | In particular, he doesn't address address Massuyeau's comment at all. (Nor does he address an innaccuracy noticed by Dylan Thurston.) | |
| Nov 2, 2010 at 9:20 | comment | added | Kim Morrison | Interestingly, Gauthier has just posted a new version of his paper, and doesn't appear to be retracting his main claim. | |
| Oct 20, 2010 at 13:00 | history | edited | Jim Conant | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 228 characters in body
|
| Oct 20, 2010 at 12:41 | comment | added | Daniel Moskovich | I believe that Gauthier's claim is refuted by Gwenael Massuyeau's comment: ldtopology.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/a-problem-with-lmo | |
| Oct 17, 2010 at 10:58 | history | edited | Jim Conant | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 353 characters in body; edited title
|
| Oct 16, 2010 at 12:17 | comment | added | Noah Snyder | Ohtsuki has a delightful book called "Quantum invariants: a study of knots, 3-manifolds, and their sets" which contains an exposition of the LMO invariant and is partially available on google books. I haven't actually read the LMO section of the book. I was reading a different part in order to fix a minor error in the normalization of the ribbon element for the unrestricted quantum group elsewhere in the literature (Ohtsuki had it right in that case). | |
| Oct 16, 2010 at 10:33 | answer | added | Dror Bar-Natan | timeline score: 17 | |
| Oct 15, 2010 at 22:05 | history | edited | Jim Conant | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 203 characters in body
|
| Oct 15, 2010 at 14:44 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | Daniel Moskovich just started a blog post about your very question, Jim. ldtopology.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/a-problem-with-lmo | |
| Oct 14, 2010 at 23:20 | comment | added | Romeo | I don't this post is the place for an exposition of the LMO invariant. Maybe ask as a separate question if you want to know (or read the papers cited the links above!)? | |
| Oct 14, 2010 at 22:16 | comment | added | user8248 | I was supposed to add a question mark. | |
| Oct 14, 2010 at 22:16 | comment | added | user8248 | I just came here for a little explanation of the LMO invariant. I have no idea what it is. Could you tell me a little something about it. I know nothing of topology and or knot theory. | |
| Oct 14, 2010 at 16:15 | history | edited | Jim Conant | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 249 characters in body
|
| Oct 14, 2010 at 16:01 | comment | added | Stopple | Add link to the arXiv papers? | |
| Oct 14, 2010 at 15:39 | history | asked | Jim Conant | CC BY-SA 2.5 |