4 ms·

Your title is a bit drastic, where does anyone say its unfixable in the post? edit: sorry, was viewing this from a mobile phone, which didn't skip ahead to the

• kingkilr 16y ago
  It's the second word. Perhaps an edit?
• amichail 16y ago
  Charanjit Jutla says "unfixable" twice.
  • igravious 16y ago
    Yes but you've linked to a comment to the main blog post. Which is a bit untoward. A comment on a blog is hardly authoritative. I did a double-take until I realized you weren't linking to the main post. The main blog post says (and I quote) Still there remains the key question: is the proof correct? In one sense the present paper almost surely has mistakes—not just from the above objections but what one could expect of any first-draft in a breakthrough situation. The real questions are, is the proof strategy correct, and are the perceived gaps fixable? edit: the commenter Charanjit Jutla seems to know his stuff but I still maintain that an offhand comment does not warrant the definitive titling of your submission.
    • kvs 16y ago
      Do a quick search on the blogs and the names of people posting comments on it. They are authoritative sources, just because it is on a blog (run by a well known complexity theorist) doesn't mean it's less important. I am quite surprised to see so many comments from these guys and such a discussion happen in public.
      • studer 16y ago
        They don't necessarily agree with each other, though, so I'm not so sure how "authoritative" individual blog comments are (see e.g. Bradfield's followup to Jutla -- "And I don’t understand your comment about it not being known whether mu-calculus has a hierarchy of expressibility in alternation. It’s 15 years since I (and independently Lenzi) proved that it did!")
    • phreeza 16y ago
      ah ok that probably explains it. I was viewing this on my phone, thought this was referring to the main article.