Life In 19x19

Tiny typo on page 2. ( Surely completely innocuous. )sample initial reception

EdLee wrote:Tiny typo on page 2. ( Surely completely innocuous.)

Unfortunately, nothing in that note is correct.

zorq wrote:

EdLee wrote:Tiny typo on page 2. ( Surely completely innocuous.)

Unfortunately, nothing in that note is correct.

At least it's imprecise.

Knotwilg wrote:

zorq wrote:Unfortunately, nothing in that note is correct.

At least it's imprecise.

Not imprecise. It is total rubbish. It shows that this famous powerful mathematician has lost his mental faculties.

The pros are being cautious.

This looks like an 89 year-old 9p claiming for the third time he can still win an international tournament and play blitz while his opponent plays slowly.

EdLee wrote:The pros are being cautious.

No, they are not cautious, they are polite.

But yeah, it's sad... and probably hard to manage for everybody involved

To be skeptically cautious and polite are not mutually exclusive.

EdLee wrote:To be skeptically cautious and polite are not mutually exclusive.

When I say "they are not cautious, they are polite", I mean that, if it was not Atiyah or another great mathematician past his prime, they would probably say "Is this a joke? That's rubbish, there's nothing of value here" instead of "I'm skeptically cautious".

We wait and see.

Let us ask Leela Zero about the winrate.

In math, either you have a proof, where each step logically (provably) follows from some set of previous steps, concluding with the final result, or you don't, because, say, you can't prove that step G follows from step F. Your proof might have an error, and people might find that error once you publish it, but you don't publish it thinking that it's 50-50 whether there's an error or not.

If you have an proof, you show it, and you say "I have a proof". You don't say "it seems like step F points towards step G, I wonder why"; if that were the case, it wouldn't be a proof, and you wouldn't publish it. You might say to your colleagues, "Hey, I feel like step F should imply step G, and if I could show it, I would have a proof of Z, does anyone have any bright ideas", or you might publish a conjecture that Z is true. But published proofs occur at a point in the process well past "It seems like such-and-such, I wonder why".