On 6/6/06, Ray Tayek <rtayek@comcast.net> wrote:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/05/0440258

As some of the slashdot comments say, the conjecture was (probably) proved a couple years ago. The Chinese mathematicians appear to have done nothing more than explain the (already-published on ArXiV) proof a little more clearly. I don't understand the original proof, and I haven't seen a copy of the Chinese paper, either, but it does seem ridiculous to present it as "A Columbia professor Richard Hamilton and a Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman have laid foundation on the latest endeavors made by the two Chinese. Prof. Hamilton completed the majority of the program and the geometrization conjecture. Yang, member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said in an interview with Xinhua, 'All the American, Russian and Chinese mathematicians have made indispensable contribution to the complete proof.'" when Perelman's proof, published years ago, WAS indeed a complete proof. Does anyone have more recent news on Perelman's proof than http://mathworld.wolfram.com/news/2003-04-15/poincare/ that would indicate it has holes which needed filling in by this "new" proof? [and yes, "holes" are an intentional pun in this context, albeit a weak one.] --Joshua Zucker