Comment by Tiberium

2 months ago

I think the editor themselves misunderstood the conjecture.

UPD: The edit got reverted and there's this on the talk page now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobian_conjecture#c-DaR...

UPD2: There are edit wars happening now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobian_conjectu... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobian_conjecture#c-Sea...

11 comments

Tiberium

Reply
tptacek  2 months ago

Wikipedia's gonna Wikipedia. Unless there's a material debate over the Jacobian Conjecture itself, there's really no open question here. This isn't a complicated proof; it's a straightforwardly checkable certificate of a solution.

  • jibal  2 months ago

    I removed the "claimed" weasel wording, and now others have followed up. The editors that don't understand math and don't realize how easily this counterexample can be confirmed have lost the debate -- not that there really ever was one.

    • kzrdude  2 months ago

      Wikipedia has policies and it needs to use reliable sources. This rule is often skirted and a lot of facts are cited to self-published and fast moving web sources. Those who are braking the progress on the article here are doing the right thing, trying to uphold the editorial standard.

      Luckily there is now a New Scientist article to link to, so, the issue should now be resolved.

      3 replies →

  • qsort  2 months ago

    It's tedious, but you could literally even do this by hand. I'm pretty sure I've done worse coordinate bash back when I did math competitions in high school.