3 ms·
Given the history of this problem, I will wait until I see experts excited about it before worrying about whether it might be a good argument.
by btilly 7y ago
Given the history of this problem, I will wait until I see experts excited about it before worrying about whether it might be a good argument.
- potiuper 7y agohttps://zjui.intl.zju.edu.cn/en/content/874774 https://zjui.intl.zju.edu.cn/en/content/874774 is not an "expert"? "Choiceless polynomial time" from Blass, Gurevich and Shelah seems to change the common definition of polynomials using the axioms of ZFC[hoice].
- klyrs 7y agoThat's the author. Wait til you see independent experts showing excitement. Andrew Wiles was plenty well respected but the review process turned up some nontrivial errors in his proof of Fermat's Last [Conjecture]. The errors were eventually fixed, but one should imagine that this isn't always the case.
- contravariant 7y agoFamously Fermat himself gave a proof that is assumed to contain at least some nontrivial errors that couldn't be fixed. Unfortunately this miraculous proof is lost to history as Fermat couldn't spare the paper.