From owner-qed Fri Nov 18 13:27:29 1994 Received: from localhost (listserv@localhost) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id NAA23839 for qed-out; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 13:26:49 -0600 Received: from optima.cs.arizona.edu (optima.CS.Arizona.EDU [192.12.69.5]) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) with SMTP id NAA23831 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 13:26:43 -0600 Received: from leibniz.CS.Arizona.EDU by optima.cs.arizona.edu (5.65c/15) via SMTP id AA20054; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 12:26:40 MST Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 12:26:39 MST From: "Richard Schroeppel" Message-Id: <199411181926.AA20963@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> Received: by leibniz.cs.arizona.edu; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 12:26:39 MST To: qed@mcs.anl.gov Subject: Errors in the Literature Sender: owner-qed@mcs.anl.gov Precedence: bulk Lyle Burkhead ... > Airplanes crash. Proofs don't. Last year I asked if anyone could give an example of a theorem which was published in a textbook or reputable journal, accepted by the mathematicians who read it and used by them in further work, and then found to be false. No one ever came up with such an example. I believe the published mathematics literature contains a significant number of errors. Most are at the typo level, but there are some number of missing terms, missing hypotheses, and important wrong words. Long calculations, and tables, frequently have errors. Many journals have a section for Errata & Corrections. If QED could fix these prior to publication, we would be better off. > It is an illusion to think that QED is needed to "verify" a proof, such as the Wiles proof, that has received the intense scrutiny of many competent mathematicians. How many mathematicians are competent to check the Wiles-Taylor-Ribet-... Theorem in every important detail? Twenty? How many *will* do it? Two? Rich Schroeppel rcs@cs.arizona.edu