Timeline for On discussion of published papers at MO
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 27, 2015 at 6:03 | comment | added | pro | I could not agree more with TC. | |
| Jun 26, 2015 at 6:59 | comment | added | Joonas Ilmavirta | I strongly agree. One could add a little paragraph at the end, along the lines of "I read the paper when it first appeared 10 years ago. Back then it had this flaw: <insert description>. Does anyone know if the published version of the proof is correct and the result is reliable?" I would not see this as confrontational if the mathematical problems in the original version are made clear. Without details it looks more ad hominem (which I believe was not the intention). | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 23:56 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | I agree that the question as it currently stands is still not a very good question for MO (and could be closed as a duplicate), although it's more polite. I hope Misha Verbitsky will consider bringing back some of the context that led to the asking of the question in the first place. | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 23:43 | history | answered | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 3.0 |