Skip to main content

Timeline for Goldberg-Seymour conjecture

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 31, 2023 at 20:42 history edited Daniele Tampieri CC BY-SA 4.0
Embedded Link
Jan 30, 2023 at 20:04 comment added Sam Hopkins I’ve said this before, but I’m with Jim in favoring allowing these kind of questions. Of course we do not want “this preprint claiming to solve the RH was posted to the arXiv last night, is it right?” type questions; but when the status of a significant problem in some area is genuinely in doubt because of a long-standing claimed solution, MO is a better venue than informal word-of-mouth for establishing community consensus.
Jan 29, 2023 at 20:59 comment added Timothy Chow Whether this type of question is suitable for MO is probably best discussed on meta.MO. This meta-question has come up repeatedly before, and a quasi-consensus has been reached. Given this state of affairs, I'd recommend going with the quasi-consensus unless you feel that that quasi-consensus should be revisited, in which case meta.MO is right forum for arguing your case.
Jan 29, 2023 at 20:09 comment added James Propp MO strikes me as an eminently suitable forum for questions like mine. A lack of replies to such a question should not be interpreted as signifying anything at all, but a reply that directs the community’s attention toward a specific gap in a proof (perhaps a gap known to an in-group but not to the mathematical community at large) could be useful in directing more attention to that gap. And a reply that says “I spent a semester going through the article with some grad students in meticulous detail and it seems solid” could be useful in a different way.
Jan 29, 2023 at 0:56 review Close votes
Feb 4, 2023 at 3:02
Jan 29, 2023 at 0:33 comment added Timothy Chow I believe that MO policy is to avoid asking these types of questions.
Jan 27, 2023 at 17:35 history edited YCor
edited tags
Jan 27, 2023 at 17:13 history asked James Propp CC BY-SA 4.0