curprev08:2808:28, 15 April 2024 192.38.90.187talk 13,204 bytes+56 the doi and issn to the Cordella et al. article did not actually direct to the article - but to a separate article in case of the doi (I could not determine where the issn lead to - but I don't think there's one associated to the article)undo
curprev19:5019:50, 2 January 2021 David Eppsteintalkcontribs 10,461 bytes−159 already mentioned earlier and I think the editorialization "minor" is not supported by the sources. And as I have said multiple times, it is false that "Babai's paper" has not been published. Two versions of it have been published. It is the full journal version that has not.undo
curprev06:3806:38, 31 December 2020 David Eppsteintalkcontribs 9,637 bytes+1,032 Undid revision 997362840 by Jehochman (talk) Given this was accepted to STOC and invited to talk about it at ICM, I think that's a highly uncharitable view of its status, one that does a disservice to our readers by not telling them about a result that is generally accepted as a major breakthrough (despite not yet in final journal form). More, I think this demonstrates serious misunderstanding about the CS publication process.undoTag: Undo