Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.psychology,sci.physics,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.bio,rec.arts.books,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!vanjac
From: vanjac@netcom.com (Sylvan Jacques)
Subject: Re: Why scientists popularize premature speculations?
Message-ID: <vanjacD0759u.854@netcom.com>
Sender: vanjac@netcom.com
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3bd8s0$1q2@pobox.csc.fi> <28NOV199420434185@pavo.concordia.ca> <JMC.94Nov30170339@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il> <vanjacD06z1v.96F@netcom.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 18:41:54 GMT
Lines: 32
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:96932 sci.psychology:30839 sci.physics:102165 sci.philosophy.meta:15246 sci.bio:23638 comp.ai.philosophy:23048

In article <vanjacD06z1v.96F@netcom.com>,
Sylvan Jacques <vanjac@netcom.com> wrote:
>Another premature announcement that comes to mind is Wiles
>and Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT).
>I haven't been following this, but the last I knew there were
>problems with the proof, which Wiles thought could be fixed.

I received some email from Lee Rudolph <lrudolph@panix.com>, saying
>As of the end of October, they are settled (in the affirmative).
>The flawed part of the original proof has been worked around
>by Wiles and a former student of his; all the biggest big shots
>seem to agree that the new and improved proof works.  Wiles
>and co. were circulating their ms to a wide enough public that
>even I got a look at it by October 23 or so...

>I then saw (but didn't read) a subject titled
>"Unethical publishing of a Wiles article in a local journal".

Lee Rudolph said he hadn't heard anything about this, and I looked
at all the sci.math posts available to me, and found nothing
about this (or Wiles proof--I guess I missed it--except 1 post
spectulating that there is an 80-88% probability that in 20 years
or so Wiles proof will be accepted as a correct proof. I have no
idea where these numbers came from, and suspect they are meaningless).

After thinking about it, I am not sure that the article on 
"Unethical publishing in a local journal" had anything to do with
Wiles proof, so I want to retract that part of my post, and
acknowlege what Lee Rudolph told me about the proof.
-- 

Van  (Sylvan Jacques)        vanjac@netcom.com
