4 ms·
That article has a comment from someone involved in the proof who disagrees: "This article is very well written, but I must object to the implications of the s
by QuesnayJr 6y ago
That article has a comment from someone involved in the proof who disagrees:
"This article is very well written, but I must object to the implications of the statement that "no-one in the world today completely understands the whole proof." Of course, complete understanding is a high benchmark to set. But I would argue that Thompson, Aschbacher and Lyons understand the proof at least as well as Danny Gorenstein did, and Steve Smith and I (and probably several others) come pretty close. See our book which received the AMS Steele Prize for Mathematical Exposition. Danny Gorenstein deserves enormous credit for conceiving and daring to articulate the strategy of the proof back in 1971-72. But his overall perspective did not die with him.
Ron Solomon"
- newprint 6y agoI see his point, but explaining this proof to people outside of this group becomes a challenge and rightfully so.
- JadeNB 6y ago> I see his point, but explaining this proof to people outside of this group becomes a challenge and rightfully so. That's probably true for any interesting proof, maybe all the more so for less famous proofs than this one where it's not clear the effort invested to understand it will be worth it!