Claude Fable produced a counterexample to the Jacobian Conjecture

Re:Claude Fable produced a counterexample to the Jacobian Co... by markasoftware on Monday July 20, 2026 @01:23AM (#48974632)

playing devil's advocate a little bit, but wikipedia does have a policy against original research. If you published an obviously correct counterexample to wikipedia which is not anywhere else on the internet (or in a book, etc), the rules are clear: the counterexample must be removed.

in this case it's not original research, because there's a tweet by someone with a good reputation, and plenty of comments on said tweet corroborating the result. But it's a more sketchy "secondary source" than most wikipedia references and some caution on the part of the editors is not out of place.

(saying this as the person who made the original edit to the wikipedia page adding the counterexample)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Fable produced a counterexample to the Jacobian Co... by endgame on Monday July 20, 2026 @02:30AM (#48974980)

The talk page about the conjecture clarifies WP:RSSELF:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sel...

> Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Fable produced a counterexample to the Jacobian Co... by tptacek on Monday July 20, 2026 @01:27AM (#48974651)

I'm not complaining about Wikipedia here, just noting for the thread: it's a vector of polynomials. It has a nonsingular Jacobian. Provided with it are 3 distinct points it sends to the same point; it can't be invertible.

What Wikipedia says about this doesn't matter, does it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Fable produced a counterexample to the Jacobian Co... by bonzini on Monday July 20, 2026 @02:26AM (#48974955)

Wikipedia does have a rule allowing "routine calculations"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...

Of course given the magnitude of the statement a bit of care is warranted, but the rules do allow it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Fable produced a counterexample to the Jacobian Co... by tptacek on Monday July 20, 2026 @02:36AM (#48975014)

I think Wikipedia has very sane processes. I'm just saying that process isn't useful to this thread. It's like if I found a SHA2 collision. I'd probably have to be an absurdly talented (and lucky) cryptanalyst to do that, but anybody on the thread could trivially confirm my finding.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Fable produced a counterexample to the Jacobian Co... by CamperBob2 on Monday July 20, 2026 @01:56AM (#48974811)

Wikipedia's editors won't be happy until the site has joined Stack Overflow in self-owned oblivion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Fable produced a counterexample to the Jacobian Co... by jibal on Monday July 20, 2026 @07:21AM (#48977245)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Fable produced a counterexample to the Jacobian Co... by nullc on Monday July 20, 2026 @09:04PM (#48986903)

Verifying that counterexample is a trivial calculation for basically anyone qualified to make substantive changes in that category of article, it shouldn't be an issue in and of itself.

Discovering the counter example is research, validating it is basic calculations.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Claude Fable produced a counterexample to the Jacobian Co... by throwaway676712 on Monday July 20, 2026 @10:33PM (#48987392)

It's more like WP:BASICMATH. It's like someone showing a huge number isn't prime (proverbially hard to factor, trivial to check) and HN/WP users requesting a reputable source citation for the factor multiplication when anyone can input it in a calculator.

[ Parent | on HN ]