Talk:List of incomplete proofs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Article name

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gödel 

message: 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)
thread_title: Dividing up the list

message: 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)
thread_title:  MO thread 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  De Branges proof of the Riemann Hypothesis