Poincare conjecture solved?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=story&cid=857&ncid=757&e=10&u=/nm/20040906/od_uk_nm/oukoe_science
_maths

or

http://tinyurl.com/5qjwz

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
> tmpl=story&cid=857&ncid=757&e=10&u=/nm/20040906/od_uk_nm/oukoe_science
> _maths
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5qjwz

Cool! And it's interesting how the guy doesn't want the money. I wish
I could be that noble...but I'd be grabbing it and living large !!!

-Aaron.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/5qjwz

It doesn't seem to be determined yet if there is a proof, but this
involves more than the Poincare conjecture, it involves the entire
classification of 3-manifolds. The purported proof would give
Thurston's elliptization conjecture, which would finish off his
program for classifying 3-manifolds.

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/tourist4d.html

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ThurstonElliptizationConjecture.html

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ThurstonsGeometrizationConjecture.html

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> It doesn't seem to be determined yet if there is a proof...

Here is what the AMS has on the murky status of this proof:

http://www.ams.org/new-in-math/mathdigest/200407-perelman.html

This says both that the proof appears to be correct, *and* that no
consensus as to its correctness has yet clearly emerged. I think part
of the problem is that Perelman isn't following the union rules and
publishing in a major research journal. If he would just send a
finished manuscript in to Inventiones and get it reviews and
published, it would seem more kosher. But this has been going on for a
long time now, and no hole has been blown in it such as was pretty
quickly blown in the first version of Wiles' proof. I figure if he
gets offered $1000000 we can assume the proof has been sufficiently
checked.