🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1glp51INN1gg@nunki.anu.edu.au> jmr@cs.anu.edu.au (Mike Robson) writes:
>>From: nrswart@phonon.uwaterloo.ca (Nicholas R. Swart)
>>Subject: S. Gismondi and E.R. Swart's research reports.....
>[a few lines omitted]
>
>>So far things are looking very good. In an earlier post someone said they
>>would put $10,000 down that the proof is correct. I'll raise that to
>>$50,000.
>>Nicholas Swart
>
>If this offer has not been withdrawn yet, I hereby accept.
>
>The ways in which the proof is incorrect are at least three. Of course
>only one step needs to be incorrect for the whole proof to be incorrect.
>
	< pointing out some mistakes >

What puzzles me is the complete silence of Gismondi and Swart in this thread.
From the potential winners of the next Turing award, who knows
maybe the field medal, I expect some interest in getting the proofs debugged.
Of course all of this discussion might have occured off-line but somehow I
doubt it.

So how about it Swart? Why not put your mouth where your money is.
Rob










-- 
# internet:     robg@win.tue.nl         | Rob Gerth		              #
# EUT:		HG 8.85			| Department of Computing Science     #
# voice:	+31-(0)40-474389/4124	| Eindhoven University of Technology  #
# fax:		+31-(0)40-463992	| 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands  #