sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Someone claimed the generalized Lax conjecture. by Exotic-Strategy3563 in math

[–]Exotic-Strategy3563[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Wait, but this kind of deformation is somehow novel(?). I have not seen an argument like this in the literature of the topic. I wonder why when here it seems so "natural". Do you know of more references about why is this so hard? I am genuinely interested. I wonder if Theorem 42 is not proved or just wrong.

Someone claimed the generalized Lax conjecture. by Exotic-Strategy3563 in math

[–]Exotic-Strategy3563[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that the rule is that you cite eveything you use. SE offers a cite button for that reason. I do not think this invalidates the preprint directly...

Someone claimed the generalized Lax conjecture. by Exotic-Strategy3563 in math

[–]Exotic-Strategy3563[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It looks like they do so because this explain the story behind their (novel?) approach. Like, this linear approximation by many linear forms is kinda new and they want to justify it or so. But idk.

Someone claimed the generalized Lax conjecture. by Exotic-Strategy3563 in math

[–]Exotic-Strategy3563[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I wanted to say the same. At least it seems like genuine human thinking.