Your post feels like a dispatch from bizarro-world.
There is a good amount of second-order evidence that the proof is wrong. Further, I skimmed the introduction, and it seems the indicated approach cannot possibly work. My guess is that both authors are senile. (They're quite old.)
If you give me decent odds, I'd be happy to bet against you regarding the proof's correctness. Would you take 1:1?
There is a good amount of second-order evidence that the proof is wrong. Further, I skimmed the introduction, and it seems the indicated approach cannot possibly work. My guess is that both authors are senile. (They're quite old.)
If you give me decent odds, I'd be happy to bet against you regarding the proof's correctness. Would you take 1:1?