I am looking for the press release sent out by Elin Oxenhielm, but have been unable to find it. Any help appreciated!
Also, I have been scanning the web for some of the discussions of the Oxenhielm case. What aspects are people discussing? Here are some links:
Dazed and confused. Oxenhielm’s person.
Funny logic. The proof is false.
Mathforge (12 Dec). Highlights Oxenhielm’s homepage.
Mathforge (29 Nov). An anonymous commenter calls the whole thing a joke.
The homepage for a course in maths at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, featured Oxenhielm’s paper in the news section. It has been erased but can still be caught at Google’s cache.
Memefirst (”Hot for Hilbert”). Oxenhielm’s person.
Chinese page that use the tesugen weblog as a source for quotes from Rosenblioum and Ekedahl.
another page from the same Chinese source. Impact factor of Nonlinear analysis.
What’s New in Math and Applied Math (by a mathematician at Caltech). Links to Nature and Oxenhielm’s homepage.
Slashdot thread. Comments on student-adviser relation, Oxenhielm’s person, the journal’s copyright ownership, the reviewer’s responsibilities (by Stephen Montgomery-Smith who claims to have been doing peer review in maths), Oxenhielm’s being featured on Slashdot, relations referee/paper author/publisher, incorrect proofs can be useful (quotes the “Yamabe conjecture”, Rich Shoen and Zhiren Jin), the proof/paper itself (!).
The first Slashdot post. Relationship student/professor, Dantzig story, Oxenhielm’s person and marital status, links to other young (female) mathematicians in Stockholm, the problem/proof itself, Zhou’s criticism, the media logic &c.
(The threads at unstruct.org linked to earlier are also interesting.)
I have not linked to traditional media because I am more interested in the roles played by discourse in new/electronic media.
Hi, I wrote the stories on Mathforge.net and was also curious to see this press release. However, my figuring is that the press release was a tad precocious on the part of Oxenhielm, judging by Zhou’s comments. You might check out my follow-up story on the front page of http://www.mathforge.net for some further discussion.
I’m most interested in seeing what happens to the journal which published Oxenhielm’s paper. I believe they are the ones most responsible for Oxenhielm’s potential defamation of character, assuming the proof was in fact very obviously flawed.
Really good work. I found a lot of profound information which can help me to go on. Thanks for all this input.