5 ms·
This is actually the 19th version of the paper the author has published in just over 2 years: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546
by oblvious-earth 4y ago
This is actually the 19th version of the paper the author has published in just over 2 years: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546
Being such a short paper if people in this field thought it was close to actually disproving the Riemann Hypothesis likely another mathematician could takes the proofs concept, fix it, publish it, and have it peer reviewed to snipe the claim of disproving the Riemann Hypothesis.
- gus_massa 4y agoFully agree. I guess there is still some honor and the other person would invite the original author as an author of the fixed paper, but it looks very snipable.
- Quant10 4y agoIf there are no significant improvements to the paper by the "second" author, such acts of "sniping" might be treated by the math community as academic theft, and the second author might not get any credit at all. If anything, their reputation might be seriously damaged. This is exactly what happened with Perelman's proof of the Poincare conjecture: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/28/manifold-destiny https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/28/manifold-desti...
- oblvious-earth 4y agoPerelman and all the surrounding controversy is the most extreme examples in modern times and I feel the mathematical community has got much more accepting of group contributions in the last 2 decades. But yes, if the proof is only missing easy plug-able gaps then likely a mathematician would reach out to the author so they could co-author the paper. Anything else would be rude. I was more meaning in the case where the proof has some insight but not apply it in a way that actually disproves the Riemann Hypothesis.