[btwillard]

> He has continued to update the paper (as recently as last year), it has not been retracted, and he appears to maintain the proof is correct on his YouTube channel.

You know that ArXiV and YouTube aren't considered "journals" and don't have a similar requirement for "retractions". It sounds like you think he should hide his shame; otherwise he deserves your attacks.

> We all make mistakes, and no one would really care if he admitted this. What makes the case notable is that he has enough mathematical training that he should really be able recognize his proof is wrong, especially after the errors are uncovered by others. Continuing to assert the proof is correct after errors have been found is bizarre.

People probably shouldn't, and don't, care because he's not affecting them in any way with his RH-related ArXiV and YouTube musing.

More importantly, where are there people showing him how his proof is wrong, and where is he outright denying their points/proofs? It seems like I'm missing a link or two, because I haven't seen any of these things, yet you're referring to them as though they're apparent and damning.

My guess is that he simply doesn't get feedback about this stuff, and he probably doesn't even care that much, because this is just a set of ideas with which he likes to work. I've seen no signs of a charged or "high stakes" math community engagement, and definitely not the kind that deserves these unwarranted personal criticisms.

[causi]

You know that ArXiV and YouTube aren't considered "journals" and don't have a similar requirement for "retractions".

My guess is that he simply doesn't get feedback about this stuff, and he probably doesn't even care that much, because this is just a set of ideas with which he likes to work.

Having every right to be a jackass doesn't make you not a jackass.

[spekcular]

I believe knowingly disseminating incorrect results is wrong. This is a violation of fundamental academic standards; we would not tolerate it in any other scientific field. Do you disagree?

[btwillard]

Do you think he's trying to poison the minds of young mathematicians?

At the very least, you're raising ArXiV and YouTube to a standard they openly do not meet.

Also, did you raise these points to him and he denied your evidence/proofs? Do you know someone who did and you're speaking for them?

[spekcular]

Arxiv's submission policy says: "Submissions to arXiv should be topical and refereeable scientific contributions that follow accepted standards of scholarly communication." (https://arxiv.org/help/submit)

It against the prevailing norms of scholarly communication to publish results with serious errors known to the author.

I agree YouTube does not have this policy. I still find incorrectly claiming a proof of RH on YouTube distasteful, for similar reasons.

I personally know a mathematician who has pointed out the mistakes to him. But also, Polson good enough at math himself that he should be aware of these points. I would criticize him just the same if he knowingly published false economics results.

[btwillard]

> Arxiv's submission policy says: "Submissions to arXiv should be topical and refereeable scientific contributions that follow accepted standards of scholarly communication." (https://arxiv.org/help/submit)

If you're implying that he violated ArXiV's submission policy, then you're going to need to stretch the definitions of those words a bit, as you attempted to do.

> I agree YouTube does not have this policy. I still find incorrectly claiming a proof of RH on YouTube distasteful, for similar reasons.

I get that you have all these personal opinions/takes, but ArXiV and YouTube don't appear to be justifying them.

> I personally know a mathematician who has pointed out the mistakes to him. But also, Polson good enough at math himself that he should be aware of these points. I would criticize him just the same if he knowingly published false economics results.

OK, so where did they post these discussions with Nick so that we can all clearly see that he's a bad or stupid person, as you're implying? Your comments assume that this is all common knowledge or apparent, but it isn't.

Are we just supposed to take your word for it? Well, I happen to know Nick, and, from my experiences with him, I have no reason to believe any of the things you're saying and/or implying.

[spekcular]

I don't think Nick Polson is a bad or stupid person. I never said this. In fact, as I said above, I believe he is quite mathematically competent. But even competent people make mistakes.

Norms of scholarly communication are not a personal opinion.

You have also curiously avoided my question about whether it is improper to knowingly disseminate incorrect results.