3 ms·
If 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, a
by Quant10 4y ago
If 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.