Jump to content

Talk:Donald G. Saari

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed edit

[edit]

I removed this edit. It was hard to follow for someone who is uninitiated, somewhat off topic, and might be original research. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it again. I originally started to put it here but this time the material had gone through a copy and paste from the edit history and was very malformatted as a result. I think anyone who wishes can just look at the edit history. —David Eppstein 02:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donald G. Saari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Fake information

[edit]

"This was later proven by Julian Palmore", says the article, but that is completely false. "There have been many attempts to solve this problem. Some of them even led to the publication of incorrect proofs, such as those in [ J. I. Palmore]." [link] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.146.61.168 (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Do you know whether there is a peer-reviewed version of that report? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a note by the same people which makes the same claim and was published in the Transactions of the AMS: [1]. XOR'easter (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]