2 ms·
The author appears to have done a fair bit of self-promotion in Wikipedia, which seems like a bad sign (though of course it doesn't prove anything): http://en.w
by gjm11 17y ago
The author appears to have done a fair bit of self-promotion in Wikipedia, which seems like a bad sign (though of course it doesn't prove anything): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tim32 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tim32 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graph_isomorphism&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graph_isomorphism&... (see, e.g., a reversion from David Eppstein, who most certainly knows his stuff, saying "Persistent long-term self-promotion; blocking may be indicated.").
- gruseom 17y agoI can't help comparing this to the extreme absence of self-promotion in the most prominent example of somebody doing this who turned out to be the real thing (Perelman).
- gjm11 17y agoYeah. But you've got to be careful; lots of people dismissed Louis de Branges' claim to have proved the Bieberbach conjecture because he also had a long history of self-promotion (and, indeed, of claiming to have proved things when his proofs really had holes). But he really did prove the Bieberbach conjecture. Then again, he also keeps claiming to have proved the Riemann hypothesis and no one believes him :-).
- gruseom 17y agoYou obviously know more about this than I do. That's a very interesting case.