Timeline for What specifically is the gap in Aubin's argument about positive Ricci curvature that Paul Ehrlich alludes to?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2022 at 10:24 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | a complete proof of CFSG is still way too long, and very few active researchers understand most details. A revision of the proof is ongoing, but worryingly mostly by people in their 70s. Anyhow, a paper might claim a correct result, but with an incorrect or incomplete proof. | |
| Jul 22, 2022 at 10:19 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | no, CFSG has not been confirmed by computers. Some parts of it, yes, but only the easiest ones. | |
| Jul 22, 2022 at 8:42 | comment | added | C.F.G | @DimaPasechnik: Are you sure? I think nowadays CFSG has been confirmed by computers but I am not sure. In any case how can one trust such results? | |
| Jul 22, 2022 at 8:39 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | during the classification of finite simple groups (CFSG) effort, in the 70s-80s, there were a number of not too correct papers in this areas. And CFSG was declared complete on basis on a never published hundreds pages long preprint. | |
| Jul 9, 2022 at 16:36 | history | edited | C.F.G | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Edited due to Ryan Budney and Kostya_I suggestions in meta thread
|
| Jul 9, 2022 at 1:59 | comment | added | C.F.G | @RyanBudney: Why you say "The 70's is an era where there were a lot of prominent papers with big holes in them"? Do you aware of another paper with deficient proof? It seems that you are agree with Paul Ehrlich? | |
| Jul 8, 2022 at 20:00 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | I've put together a meta thread: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/5390/… | |
| Jul 8, 2022 at 19:51 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | I did a little search. It appears the consensus is that the question-asker should not post a question about correctness of a paper, but instead read the paper and ask specific questions about a specific step in the paper. meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1265/… | |
| Jul 8, 2022 at 19:46 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | @RyanBudney: Maybe there should be a meta discussion. In my opinion, if the paper is more than a handful of years old, and you can either: point to a specific potential issue with the argument; or point to a public statement of doubt from someone else, then asking about the correctness of the paper is totally fine for MO. (These qualifiers eliminate 90% of the bad faith questions about new purported proofs of the Riemann hypothesis or whatever...) | |
| Jul 8, 2022 at 19:40 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | @SamHopkins: The 70's is an era where there were a lot of prominent papers with big holes in them. While I would certainly enjoy having a venue where we point out the problems in those papers, maybe there needs to be a meta discussion before we open up the floodgates? | |
| Jul 8, 2022 at 19:34 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | @RyanBudney: FWIW, I think "is this result in a paper from the 70s correct" is pretty different from "is this result in a preprint that was posted to the arXiv yesterday correct," and doubly so if there is another published paper casting doubts on the result. | |
| Jul 8, 2022 at 19:17 | comment | added | C.F.G | @RyanBudney: Most of people cited Aubin paper, also cited Paul Ehrlich's paper as well. This makes me hesitate that perhaps others also have same problem of Paul Ehrlich. (I have no access to MathSciNet but I checked ZB). | |
| Jul 8, 2022 at 19:09 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | Perhaps this is too tautological, but do you see people citing [1] in a substantial way, in the literature? A MathSciNet search could give you a first approximation as to how internalized the result is, in the literature, which is a gauge of how accepted a paper is. As you probably know "is this result correct" questions tend to not always get favorable treatment here. | |
| Jul 8, 2022 at 18:45 | history | asked | C.F.G | CC BY-SA 4.0 |