3 ms·

I think the editor themselves misunderstood the conjecture. UPD: The edit got reverted and there's this on the talk page now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal

I think the editor themselves misunderstood the conjecture. UPD: The edit got reverted and there's this on the talk page now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobian_conjecture#c-DaRealPoopster2-20260720044500-~2026-40618-57-20260720042600 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobian_conjecture#c-DaR... UPD2: There are edit wars happening now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobian_conjecture&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobian_conjectu... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobian_conjecture#c-SeaHaircutSoilReplace-20260720050600-NOR/RS_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobian_conjecture#c-Sea...

tptacek 3mo ago
Wikipedia's gonna Wikipedia. Unless there's a material debate over the Jacobian Conjecture itself, there's really no open question here. This isn't a complicated proof; it's a straightforwardly checkable certificate of a solution.
- qsort 3mo ago
  It's tedious, but you could literally even do this by hand. I'm pretty sure I've done worse coordinate bash back when I did math competitions in high school.
- jibal 3mo ago
  I removed the "claimed" weasel wording, and now others have followed up. The editors that don't understand math and don't realize how easily this counterexample can be confirmed have lost the debate -- not that there really ever was one.
  - kzrdude 3mo ago
    Wikipedia has policies and it needs to use reliable sources. This rule is often skirted and a lot of facts are cited to self-published and fast moving web sources. Those who are braking the progress on the article here are doing the right thing, trying to uphold the editorial standard. Luckily there is now a New Scientist article to link to, so, the issue should now be resolved.
    - handoflixue 3mo ago
      The problem is, "dozens of mathematicians have independently confirmed this, and no one in the community has made any credible objections" is actually a much more reliable source than a link to an article. It's just less legible to administrators.
      - tptacek 3mo ago
        It's not really the job of an encyclopedia to be an up-to-the-minute reliable news source. Over the long term, the benefits of the reliable sourcing policy likely outweigh temporary issues like this.
    - jibal 3mo ago
      I know what the policies are and I followed them. I also read the entire discussion on the talk page before making my change ... I doubt that you did. WP:BASICMATH says that this is not OR. If this were OR then even the "claimed" statement would have required RS. No one was willing to remove the counterexample altogether, so my edit to remove the "claimed" weasel word was perfectly valid.
whimsicalism 3mo ago
[flagged]
- virgildotcodes 3mo ago
  When you eat alphabet soup, do you take note of all the leftist messages bobbing in and out of existence in your bowl?
  - whimsicalism 3mo ago
    [flagged]
verteu 3mo ago
I agree, the conjecture never says anything about a proper map.

tptacek 3mo ago

Wikipedia's gonna Wikipedia. Unless there's a material debate over the Jacobian Conjecture itself, there's really no open question here. This isn't a complicated proof; it's a straightforwardly checkable certificate of a solution.

qsort 3mo ago
It's tedious, but you could literally even do this by hand. I'm pretty sure I've done worse coordinate bash back when I did math competitions in high school.
jibal 3mo ago
I removed the "claimed" weasel wording, and now others have followed up. The editors that don't understand math and don't realize how easily this counterexample can be confirmed have lost the debate -- not that there really ever was one.
- kzrdude 3mo ago
  Wikipedia has policies and it needs to use reliable sources. This rule is often skirted and a lot of facts are cited to self-published and fast moving web sources. Those who are braking the progress on the article here are doing the right thing, trying to uphold the editorial standard. Luckily there is now a New Scientist article to link to, so, the issue should now be resolved.
  - handoflixue 3mo ago
    The problem is, "dozens of mathematicians have independently confirmed this, and no one in the community has made any credible objections" is actually a much more reliable source than a link to an article. It's just less legible to administrators.
    - tptacek 3mo ago
      It's not really the job of an encyclopedia to be an up-to-the-minute reliable news source. Over the long term, the benefits of the reliable sourcing policy likely outweigh temporary issues like this.
  - jibal 3mo ago
    I know what the policies are and I followed them. I also read the entire discussion on the talk page before making my change ... I doubt that you did. WP:BASICMATH says that this is not OR. If this were OR then even the "claimed" statement would have required RS. No one was willing to remove the counterexample altogether, so my edit to remove the "claimed" weasel word was perfectly valid.

whimsicalism 3mo ago

[flagged]

virgildotcodes 3mo ago
When you eat alphabet soup, do you take note of all the leftist messages bobbing in and out of existence in your bowl?
- whimsicalism 3mo ago
  [flagged]

verteu 3mo ago

I agree, the conjecture never says anything about a proper map.