← Back to context Comment by CamperBob2 16 hours ago Right, but someone else did ("colleagues.") 6 comments CamperBob2 Reply habinero 15 hours ago No, they searched for it. There's a lot of math literature out there, not even an expert is going to know all of it. CamperBob2 14 hours ago Point being, it's not the same proof. mmooss 13 hours ago Your point seemed to be, if Tao et al. haven't heard of it then it must not exist. The now known literature proof contradicts that claim. 3 replies →
habinero 15 hours ago No, they searched for it. There's a lot of math literature out there, not even an expert is going to know all of it. CamperBob2 14 hours ago Point being, it's not the same proof. mmooss 13 hours ago Your point seemed to be, if Tao et al. haven't heard of it then it must not exist. The now known literature proof contradicts that claim. 3 replies →
CamperBob2 14 hours ago Point being, it's not the same proof. mmooss 13 hours ago Your point seemed to be, if Tao et al. haven't heard of it then it must not exist. The now known literature proof contradicts that claim. 3 replies →
mmooss 13 hours ago Your point seemed to be, if Tao et al. haven't heard of it then it must not exist. The now known literature proof contradicts that claim. 3 replies →
No, they searched for it. There's a lot of math literature out there, not even an expert is going to know all of it.
Point being, it's not the same proof.
Your point seemed to be, if Tao et al. haven't heard of it then it must not exist. The now known literature proof contradicts that claim.
3 replies →