M****o
发帖数: 4860 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Mathematics 讨论区 】
发信人: guinea (猪猪), 信区: Mathematics
标 题: 田刚抄袭最新证据（唐纳尔森教授撰文）
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Nov 20 21:06:17 2013, 美东)
全文见
Xiuxiong Chen, Simon Donaldson, Song Sun
September 19, 2013
http://www2.imperial.ac.uk/~skdona/KEDEVELOPMENTS-9-19-2013.PDF
部分摘录
Gang Tian has made claims to credit for these results. The purpose of this
document is to rebut these claims on the grounds of originality, priority
and correctness of the mathematical arguments. We acknowledge Tian's many
contributions to this field in the past and, partly for this reason, we have
avoided raising our objections publicly over the last 15 months, but it
seems now that this is the course we have to take in order to document the
facts. In addition, this seems to us the responsible action to take and one
we owe to our colleagues, especially those affected by these developments.
---------
In sum, our fundamental objections to Tian’s claim over the partial C^0
estimate are:
– It seems to us highly improbable that Tian independently came on the
proof, involving exactly the same ideas, in the short time interval (roughly
April-June 2012) in question. Here we have in mind that, as noted above,
the techniques which underpin the proof have been available for ten years or
more.
– Even given that it is not impossible that such a coincidence occurred, we
have clear priority in the presentation of both outline and detailed proofs.
– Even after 15 months from the appearance of Donaldson and Sun's paper [2]
to the date of this writing, Tian has not produced a convincing complete
proof of this result.
-----------
Our fundamental objections to Tian's claims with respect to Yau's conjecture
are:
• that we feel that there is no evidence that Tian was in possession
of anything approaching a complete proof at the time of his announcement [6]
in Stony Brook;
• that both arXiv versions [11], [12] of his paper have serious gaps
and
mistakes;
• that, insofar as these gaps and mistakes have been partially filled
and corrected (in comparing [11], [12], [13]), many of the changes and
additions made reproduce ideas and techniques that we had previously
introduced in our publicly available work [7], [8], [9], 10], without any
kind of acknowledgement. We will not attempt to take up every single gap and
mistake that we see in Tian's proposed proofs (including the necessity of
checking carefully the relevant results of Jeffres, Mazzeo and Rubinstein,
noted above), but concentrate on three points in the subsections 3.1,3.2,3.3
below.
--------------
These assertions are blatant copying without attribution. This is almost
half a year since the appearance of our third paper [10], in which the
detailed proof of the reductivity is provided, based on the uniqueness
theorems proved by Berndtsson and Berman-Boucksom-Essydieux-Guedj-Zeriahi,
and the technical difficulty in extending the usual proof of the Matsushima
theorem is pointed out. |
|
