Timeline for Status of the Leopoldt conjecture ? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Jun 18, 2012 at 14:42 | comment | added | Olivier | Like quid, I encourage you to ask a reworded question. I'd be glad to do my best to answer it. | |
| Jun 18, 2012 at 11:07 | comment | added | user9072 | @KBuck: we (you and I) do not have any fundamental/general disagreement on this. I think I agree with Olivier that a carefully formulated question along these lines could be good. However, I do not find this question carefully formulated; in particular, there is little to nothing that documents a detailed mathematical interest in the matter (maybe it is there, but it is not visible from the question). You could start a meta-thread (extra sign-up necessary, but simple and instant) to further discuss this or to work on an improved version. | |
| Jun 18, 2012 at 7:37 | history | closed |
user9072 Daniel Moskovich Felipe Voloch Noah Snyder David Loeffler |
not constructive | |
| Jun 18, 2012 at 6:54 | comment | added | KBuck | I think if someone publishes a paper in the internet, saying I'm the one who proved this important conjecture, then it's no longer his private affair. He then has to reckon that people start asking about the work's approval status. Moreover if an important proof is sent to a journal with high reputation then it should be possible to decide within 3 years if it's correct or if there are gaps. Hence the unclear status of Mihailescu's work is unsatisfying. But I agree that it's up to him to give information about the approval status - that shouldn't be done by /asked to third parties. | |
| Jun 18, 2012 at 6:49 | history | edited | KBuck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 62 characters in body
|
| Jun 18, 2012 at 0:41 | comment | added | Kevin Ventullo | Of course you are both right. I was thinking more about whether he intended on submitting a paper, but I suppose this is a sensitive question if the answer is yes. | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 20:20 | comment | added | Olivier | I think that a question on the status of Leopoldt's conjecture might be appropriate and even interesting if carefully formulated. However, I agree with quid that question 1 is extremely inappropriate: submission and rejection should not be public, only acceptance should. | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 8:35 | comment | added | user9072 | I went to considerable lengths to argue for some question like this to stay open on other occassions; this one seems purely gossip-y and we know that the author is not keen on this discussion to happen on MO. Also, 1. IMO is an inapropriate question to ask. 2. should be best asked to Roquette (though I guess if he did not add details he meant the one everybody knows about), and for 3. well most likely as a coupele of month ago. | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 8:17 | comment | added | KBuck | @quid: I think it's of general interest to know about the status (that may change over time) of important conjectures in a field. That's why I used the big picture tag. @Kevin: No, I thought I ask at first on MO before contacting him. | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 4:08 | comment | added | Kevin Ventullo | @quid: It may be of interest to someone who wants to attack Leopoldt conjecture himself. To the OP: regarding 1., have you tried emailing Mihailescu? | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 0:08 | comment | added | user9072 | In view of the answer to the question linked to I vote to close this. Alos, there seems to be no clear motivation for this question beyond general interest. | |
| Jun 16, 2012 at 23:15 | history | asked | KBuck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |