Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
There has been a little discussion in comments of whether this question should be closed. I'm starting this this meta thread to accommodate such discussion.
Note that similar issues were discussed in this thread.
My opinion is that this question is fine, for roughly the same reasons as I gave in the previous thread.
A priori I think the question is fine, as you could imagine there being an answer along the lines of "The paper in preparation called X in the bibliography is now called Y, and the proof of Theorem 5 appears on page Z." But since such an answer hasn't appeared I feel like this question is going to do more harm than good, and should be closed. It sounds like something that would be better handled privately.
I interpret the author's answer as indirect evidence that there is not interest in a public discussion on MO. Thus I vote to close.
I agree with Noah and quid. There's nothing wrong with the original question, but if Andersen doesn't want to have a public discussion on MO about the proof then he should not be pressured to do so. I will also vote to close.
@markvs: but the author already replied to your comment, via an edit to the question adding something like 'including theorem 5'. Actually this non-answer to your comment was my main motivation to close.
(In general I am in favor of such questions and argued in favor of them on other occassions; I am also not very much 'against' this one, but due to the involvement of the author the situation is a bit different IMO in this case.)
I think you should ask Jorgen over email. He may be more inclined to discuss it there. If he wanted to say something publicly here, he would have already.
"I have done it and received exactly the same (non-)answer about a year ago." Well then I don't know what you hope to accomplish here.
If the question is reopened I will vote to close.
If the situation is as Mark Sapir describes (and I have no reason to doubt it), ie also in private correspondence -- which was explictly offered to OP and the OP being essentially anonymous I take this as a general invitation -- one does not get 'better' information, then in general (that is without having any clue about the particular situation) I consider this as problematic. Still I think the general MO policy is/was by precedent (perhaps this should be changed?) even in less potentially complicated scenarios, to stay away from this type of content. Because what is effectively suggested here is that MO becomes the authorative source for the status of a result in a potentially controversial context. It could no doubt be useful, but it would be quite a step away of what I perceived to be pratise up to know.
I agree with Daniel. I think that if such a gap is found by someone, the author should be notified so as to give him a chance to retract the result or fix the gap. If neither of those is forthcoming, it is a responsibility (unpleasant as it may be) for the error to be made a part of the public record (or corrected).
There was actually a soft question on exactly this issue many moons ago, and I remember seeing that the most popular answer was something like what I said above.
Looks like it's all sorted out now.
1 to 19 of 19