3 ms·
I've learned to be cautious about supposed proofs of famous conjectures, especially if they're published by one person who is not a well-known mathematician, bu
by xigoi 4y ago
I've learned to be cautious about supposed proofs of famous conjectures, especially if they're published by one person who is not a well-known mathematician, but I don't know nearly enough about this topic to judge this one and it looks like it knows what it's talking about. I'm curious how it turns out.
- dls2016 4y ago"Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong" https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=304 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=304 (I haven't looked at the paper linked in the title.)
- Tomte 4y ago8 applies, at least. It's like "you're interested in P = NP? I assume you've never heard of Turing machines, right?". And 7, of course.
- Jaxan 4y ago> it looks like it knows what it's talking about I’m not sure about that. I have never seen the notation Z_2 being used for the Gaussian integers, for example. Their notation is not quite standard and this is often a bad sign. Also the abstract on arxiv is full of latex commands…
- xigoi 4y ago> I have never seen the notation Z_2 being used for the Gaussian integers For some reason, my brain totally slipped over that when skimming the abstract. I was like “Gaussian integers are a real thing, ℤ₂ is a real thing, okay, cool”.
- pdpi 4y agoJust the citations alone (or rather the lack thereof) are enough to put this in the crank bucket.