3 ms·
After overlooking the paper and applying Scott Aaronson's criterion I bet against you and bet: - The proof will turn out to have a flaw - The flaw will not be
by wolfgke 9y ago
After overlooking the paper and applying Scott Aaronson's criterion I bet against you and bet:
- The proof will turn out to have a flaw
- The flaw will not be that hard to find (though probably not completely trivial; but rather of the kind: it takes much time to go to the details of the proof arguments)
- The flaw will not be interesting in itself and will not advance the field
- kittysasa 9y agoSeconded. The flaws in these papers are not hard to find. They usually amount to misunderstanding of definitions or the results they cite.
- westoncb 9y agoUnlikely considering the author of the paper. I'm basing that on other comments on the thread which this section seems to be missing, e.g.: > ...this guy is an established senior researcher at the University of Bonn
- hnaccy 9y agoEven experienced people can make "silly" mistakes. https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.04208v1 https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.04208v1
- westoncb 9y agoThey can—but that doesn't mean we should assume it's a silly mistake (as opposed to a deep one) without more information than that he's an accomplished researcher.
- KGIII 9y agoTo add to this, I have a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. I am also an accomplished researcher, albeit retired. I make more mistakes by 09:00 than most people will make all day. Hell, my girlfriend would suggest that we can move that time forward a couple of hours.