Timeline for Mapping class group and property (T) [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 12, 2013 at 5:32 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Sep 12, 2013 at 19:14 | |||||
| Feb 3, 2012 at 3:42 | comment | added | Noah Snyder | Michael, I hope you have a look at the meta thread. When you vote to close you have to pick one of half-a-dozen fixed "reasons," but I don't think most people who voted to close think this was necessarily a bad question or that you were trying to be argumentative. I don't want you to feel unwelcome. | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 21:28 | history | closed |
JSE Noah Snyder user9072 Kevin Walker Oscar Randal-Williams |
not constructive | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 19:33 | comment | added | HJRW | Meta thread: tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1297/… . If there is any more discussion of whether this question should be closed, meta is a better venue. | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 18:12 | comment | added | Andy Putman | (think = this; I really wish I could edit comments). | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 18:11 | comment | added | Andy Putman | @JSE : I'm not sure what I think about the current question. Certainly there is a consensus that questions of the form "This paper proving some big conjecture was just posted to the arXiv. Is it correct?" are not appropriate. However, for older papers I'm not sure there is one. The closest analogue I can think of is the question mathoverflow.net/questions/26821/is-thompsons-group-f-amenable about the amenability of Thompson's group, which was highly upvoted and (as far as I can tell) not controversial. But I am a little uneasy about think kind of question. | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 17:25 | comment | added | JSE | I voted to close this, though I'm not sure it exactly fits any of the closure categories. There's a fine line between "what is known about conjecture X" (obviously OK) and "is this paper that claims conjecture X correct?" and my sense was that the latter type of question, especially if it ends up being used as a means of summoning the author to defend the claim in public, is somehow out of bounds. | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 17:02 | comment | added | user6976 | @Ian: Yes, I know about this reference. But Joergen has answered below that a complete proof exists. Perhaps there is another proof. | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 16:51 | comment | added | Ian Agol | @Mark: If you look at the paper, you'll see that Theorem 5 cites a theorem in an paper which is "in preparation". Maybe Joergen can address the status of this theorem. | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 16:16 | answer | added | Jørgen Ellegaard Andersen | timeline score: 31 | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 16:07 | comment | added | user6976 | I wrote to Jorgen Andersen. Perhaps he can clarify the situation here. | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 11:23 | history | edited | user6976 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 2, 2012 at 10:57 | comment | added | user6976 | @Ian: What does it mean, "missing results from the paper"? A proof either exists or it does not. Is it correct that there is no proof and the conjecture is still open? | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 8:57 | comment | added | Ian Agol | Andersen talked about this recently at Berkeley: math.berkeley.edu/~harold/RTGconference.html There seems to be a new ingredient identifying the different representations: front.math.ucdavis.edu/1110.5027 This paper states that the results are used in the Property (T) paper. But there still seems to be some missing results from the paper (Theorem 5). | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 7:27 | history | asked | Michael | CC BY-SA 3.0 |