Timeline for Is the Leopoldt conjecture almost always true?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 28, 2011 at 20:41 | comment | added | David Hansen | Notes on Fujiwara's approach can be found here (www.ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~t-saito/conf/rv/Leopoldt.pdf) - it would be interesting to know exactly where this goes wrong. | |
| May 28, 2011 at 17:29 | comment | added | Rob Harron | @Dr Shello: It's my understanding that the experts have not come out and said that Mihăilescu's proof is incorrect, but that they have not said it is correct either. | |
| May 28, 2011 at 16:03 | comment | added | Kimball | I didn't know what the expert opinion was on that paper. By the way, what exactly happened with Fujiwara's approach: did anything come out of it? | |
| May 28, 2011 at 8:23 | comment | added | Junkie | I agree with your statement, Olivier (maybe derivative of the same credible persons), but I wasn't going to voice rumors without a specific flaw being noted. One problem is that Mihailescu has his own expositional style, to say the least, and it is often hard to figure out what he has really done or shown. As Minhyong Kim said when PM gave talks, he was very open to questions, and there was a lot going on, but the jury seems to say: this as-is is not a proof: but there are various new ideas which might lead to a proof. Now he claims the CM case separately, maybe this will clear matters. | |
| May 28, 2011 at 7:46 | comment | added | Dr Shello | To be clear: are you saying that the linked paper is false? | |
| May 28, 2011 at 7:15 | comment | added | Olivier | Fujiwara retracted its proof. As for Mihailescu's, credible people I discussed it with tended to be more critical than "the jury is still out" and at least one was much more so. But you never know... | |
| May 28, 2011 at 5:26 | comment | added | Junkie | Just this last week, Mihailescu has written the CM case separately: arxiv.org/abs/1105.4544 | |
| May 28, 2011 at 5:20 | comment | added | Junkie | Given the number of "proofs" of big theorems I've seen on arXiv, I would agree that the "jury was still out" unless it has been accepted for publication, or other notables are talking about it and taking it seriously (like happened with Catalan). It has now been a preprint for 2 years and he gave talks in late 2009, and I haven't heard anyone particularly voice a confirmation. There is value in the paper, though maybe not everything he claims. Supposedly Lenstra gave up reading Mihailescu's manuscripts just when Catalan worked, so if it's serious math you should always give it some merit. | |
| May 28, 2011 at 4:11 | comment | added | David Hansen | I was under the impression that "the jury was still out" on this, so I figured I'd ask my question in the meantime. | |
| May 28, 2011 at 4:10 | history | answered | Kimball | CC BY-SA 3.0 |