3 ms·
I'm very skeptical, for the following reasons: 1. The author first released this paper (well, a version of it) in April 2009. It seems unlikely that it would h
by crntaylor 13y ago
I'm very skeptical, for the following reasons:
1. The author first released this paper (well, a version of it) in April 2009. It seems unlikely that it would have gone unnoticed for four years if the proof was valid.
2. Aside from a 1979 textbook and a 2010 paper, the author only cites himself (10 times!)
3. The author does not use TeX (see 1. at "Ten Signs A Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is False" http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304)
- glomph 13y ago>At some point, there might be nothing left to do except to roll up your sleeves, brew some coffee, and tell your graduate student to read the paper and report back to you. Hahaha.