It is claimed in an answer in mathoverflow to a question about Siegel's Mean value theorem (link- Siegel's Mean Value Theorem by Rogers and Macbeath) that there is mistake for the case $n=2$. I couldn't find any mistake in the paper. Is it true that there is a mistake? If so what is it?
4
-
$\begingroup$ The link you give notes a paper where the mistake is said to have been corrected. Have you looked at that paper? $\endgroup$– Gerry MyersonCommented Jan 23, 2018 at 22:59
-
$\begingroup$ "The hardest part in Schmidt’s work was the case $n = 2$ where most of Rogers’s identities were not applicable: there was no variance bound in $\mathbb{R}^2$ to rely upon." --- arxiv.org/abs/1510.01433 $\endgroup$– Carlo BeenakkerCommented Jan 24, 2018 at 7:23
-
$\begingroup$ @CarloBeenakker The paper that I'm taking about (link- ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0103183) only considers (Siegel) mean values over space of lattices, not variance. Is it the same paper you're talking about? $\endgroup$– mahbubwebCommented Jan 24, 2018 at 9:53
-
$\begingroup$ Gerry Myerson No I didn't look at that paper. In the link (mathoverflow.net/questions/157087/…) it is said Theorem 1, page 147 might be wrong. But as far as I've checked there isn't any mistake in any argument there. I think the mistake that @skayf is talking about in a answer to mathoverflow.net/questions/157087/… might be in different paper. To be clear the paper Macbeath and Rogers I'm talking about is-- mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0103183. $\endgroup$– mahbubwebCommented Jan 24, 2018 at 10:00
Add a comment
|