3 ms·

Is this more than a preprint? Usually really long research like this takes a long time to verify, like that guy who claimed to solve the abc conjecture. The art

Is this more than a preprint? Usually really long research like this takes a long time to verify, like that guy who claimed to solve the abc conjecture. The article talks about it like everyone agrees this is valid, but is it?

YetAnotherNick 4y ago
Paper was posted on 30th May and this article was written on 4th August. So it is possible it has been verified.
- gus_massa 4y ago
  That's only 2 months for 900 pages, like 15 pages per day, it's impossible to read it so fast. IIRC checking the proof of the last Fermat theorem took a few years (and a few modifications to fix holes).
  - raattgift 4y ago
    I'd be unable to sleep worrying about whether one of my - should really be a +, or whether I stumbled on one step of "index gymnastics". Or I'd be wondering if someone would ever spot the deliberate <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatosu_and_Goblu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatosu_and_Goblu> trick of changing a single \mathrm{B} into a \mathfrak{B}. Or both. However, the authors are in close communication with many of the other authors in their extensive bibliography whose work this follows (and in turn who likely be provoked into further work). The progress (seen in the paper's review-like parts and the bibliography) has been towards proving that less and less "gentle" vacuum spacetimes aren't irrevocably upset by gravitational waves passing through them. The bibliography cites a number of pre-pandemic preprints that were in "to appear in <journal>" state. In that sort of academic bubble, which is far from unusual, errors are liable to be found fairly quickly. Also I would guess that the authors revisited their self-cited previous work, which sometimes produces forehead-smacking.
    - gus_massa 4y ago
      My PhD thesis was in Harmonic Analysis and has a lot of Fourier transforms and antitransforms. I still think that approximately the 50% of the + or - signs are wrong. Anyway, in spite of the common image in popular culture, most math results are more roust and can survive a few sign changes, perhaps with some small fixes.
corndoge 4y ago
FTA: > […] He did stress, however, that the new paper has not yet undergone peer review.
woopwoop 4y ago
Probably there isn't anyone who wasn't an author who can vouch for it yet, but this is a different situation. These guys have been working toward this problem for a long time in much closer touch with the mathematical community, with partial results that people can vouch for. This contrasts with the situation with the abc conjecture, which was done in almost complete isolation from the mathematical community with as far as I know no intermediate results.

YetAnotherNick 4y ago

Paper was posted on 30th May and this article was written on 4th August. So it is possible it has been verified.

gus_massa 4y ago
That's only 2 months for 900 pages, like 15 pages per day, it's impossible to read it so fast. IIRC checking the proof of the last Fermat theorem took a few years (and a few modifications to fix holes).
- raattgift 4y ago
  I'd be unable to sleep worrying about whether one of my - should really be a +, or whether I stumbled on one step of "index gymnastics". Or I'd be wondering if someone would ever spot the deliberate <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatosu_and_Goblu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatosu_and_Goblu> trick of changing a single \mathrm{B} into a \mathfrak{B}. Or both. However, the authors are in close communication with many of the other authors in their extensive bibliography whose work this follows (and in turn who likely be provoked into further work). The progress (seen in the paper's review-like parts and the bibliography) has been towards proving that less and less "gentle" vacuum spacetimes aren't irrevocably upset by gravitational waves passing through them. The bibliography cites a number of pre-pandemic preprints that were in "to appear in <journal>" state. In that sort of academic bubble, which is far from unusual, errors are liable to be found fairly quickly. Also I would guess that the authors revisited their self-cited previous work, which sometimes produces forehead-smacking.
  - gus_massa 4y ago
    My PhD thesis was in Harmonic Analysis and has a lot of Fourier transforms and antitransforms. I still think that approximately the 50% of the + or - signs are wrong. Anyway, in spite of the common image in popular culture, most math results are more roust and can survive a few sign changes, perhaps with some small fixes.

corndoge 4y ago

FTA: > […] He did stress, however, that the new paper has not yet undergone peer review.

woopwoop 4y ago

Probably there isn't anyone who wasn't an author who can vouch for it yet, but this is a different situation. These guys have been working toward this problem for a long time in much closer touch with the mathematical community, with partial results that people can vouch for. This contrasts with the situation with the abc conjecture, which was done in almost complete isolation from the mathematical community with as far as I know no intermediate results.