Talk:List of incomplete proofs

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 January 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep and rename.

"Hopelessly wrong"

Someone clean up the writing of this article. It reads like someone with no knowledge of writing factual texts wrote it.

Untitled

Alright, someone is not happy with this page.
Fine, we'll improve it.

But why immediately delete it ?
Is that not a bit blatant and uncooperative ?
Lovely response to my first suggested new page.
Welcome on Wikipedia. Tristan Laurillard (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have removed the deletion notice. The original nominator may nominate it for deletion where a longer debate will occur. I'm sorry that your first introduction to wikipedia was like this, but we do get a lot of people who don't have the best intentions for our project. Honestly, welcome to the project! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 07:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

If the article's new name is going to be "List of published false theorems" then it shouldn't include Kempe's (incorrect) proof of the four-color theorem, which is not a false theorem. I would prefer another name change, but I have no suggestions to make. -- Dominus (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gödel

The Gödel example seems to say that an offhand remark in Gödel's paper turned out to be wrong. If the remark wasn't presented as a theorem, does the example belong on the list?

Later mathematicians treated the claimed result as proven, so I think it does belong on the list. —Mark Dominus (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a 1925 result of von Neumann and Ackermann claiming to prove that Peano arithmetic was consistent, with the proof based on a weaker metatheory. That result was of course wrong as it would contradict Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Maybe that should be added. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely so. This is not the first time that has been suggested. Please do add it. —Mark Dominus (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing up the list

I would be in favour of dividing up: the incorrect proofs of correct theorems could usefully be separated from the claims of proofs of incorrect theorems. And incorrect proofs of results still open is another class that is worth separate listing. Perhaps some further refinements would be possible, but that would be a helpful start for the reader. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MO thread

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/35468/widely-accepted-mathematical-results-that-were-later-shown-wrong 71.141.88.54 (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perko pair

What's the source for the dubious claim in parentheses (at the end of the Perko pair entry)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.194.237 (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of incomplete proofs. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402132516/https://dlib.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/15593/Bilinski_dodecahedron.pdf to https://dlib.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/15593/Bilinski_dodecahedron.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 21:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De Branges proof of the Riemann Hypothesis

I realize that listing all the incomplete and disproved attempts would be un-encyclopedic but De Branges case must be unique in that he is already credited with proving the Bierbach conjecture, a major mathematical problem, possibly even the more general Milin conjecture. His proof of the Riemann hypothesis has not been discredited, simply unverified, and what I can find online seems to suggest it is merely incomplete.

Will my fellow Wikipedians object if I add it to the list? Sources: Purdue University initial announcement https://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/2004/040608.DeBranges.Riemann.html The revised paper by De Branges: https://www.math.purdue.edu/~branges/proof-riemann-2017-04.pdf An analysis by PhD Kvaalen wherein he says the proof holds if theorem 2 is correct which he cannot verify because the final statement is missing - this is what distinguishes the proof as incomplete as opposed to simply unverified, as for example Michael Atiyah's. https://eric.kvaalen.com/papers/DeBrangesMethod/index.html Calydon (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is how many "attempts" to solve famous open questions should be mentioned. The focus should be a proof not a mere attempt. If I remember, one of the students of DeBranges showed DeBranges‘ approach cannot work, which would imply not only the proof is incomplete but it cannot be completed. But anyway there are many failed proofs of RH so it may be ok to mention DeBranges’s as one among them. —— Taku (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical Logic

Quine published his original description of the system Mathematical Logic in 1940, but in 1942 Rosser showed it was inconsistent. Wang found a correction in 1950; the consistency of this revised system is still unclear.

Is "the consistency of this revised system is still unclear" still accurate, since New Foundations has been shown to be consistent using a formal theorem prover? (Holmes, Wilshaw, "NF is Consistent") I don't know if the system proven consistent is the same one by Wang mentioned here. C7XWiki (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]