4 ms·
It's difficult to trust self-published, non-peer reviewed papers on arxiv. You can just as easily find papers claiming P=/=NP https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.09269
by dontcontactme 4y ago
It's difficult to trust self-published, non-peer reviewed papers on arxiv. You can just as easily find papers claiming P=/=NP
https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.09269 https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.09269
- bawolff 4y agoNot just that, but this paticulary problem is also famous for crazy people claiming they have a proof. Until some mathmatician agrees with the proof (or even just indicates it is interesting), this is a non story.
- jsmith45 4y agoYeah. The "proof" of theorem 2 being just a handwavy do the first proof again, but use Q_2 and normalize the result after each step to a simple fraction, which will only increase c_1. That really sounds suspicious to me. Why not just solve this version directly with these changes. That should have been a more straightforward proof.
- bilsbie 4y agoWouldn’t this be easy to test though?