So what they are saying is that humans, in this case Charles Fefferman (a math prodigy, going by his history), failed to specify the problem correctly?
Fefferman was right to include option C as someone could have come up with less contrived counterexample accompanied by some interesting theorems that actually shed light on the general case
Doesn't the way OAI's proof is formulated essentially rule that out, in that as long as an alternative solution concerns option C, it'd have to live in this same solution space they carved out?
ChickeNES · · focus · HN ↗
alkyon · · focus · HN ↗
perching_aix · · focus · HN ↗