RE: Pete's comment
- Peter presented an incorrect 11-page proof to me via e-mail on 1 or 2
separate occasions. I noticed an error in his definition and the real
proof came out to be less than 1 page (I spent 3 days condensing it).
Rather than wait for the American Journal of Mathematics to discover his mistake in a 16-18-month waiting period, I sent in the proof with the
corrected definition along with my very short version to the American
Mathematical Society; I promised him that I would find someone to verify
it.; they said they'd get back to me in 3-4 days.
It really doesn't matter who gets the reward for proving it, so I listed
him as the originator of the proof and myself as someone who corrected his
paper's original definition with a reduced general case.
It didn't follow his arguments except for the simplest case. I didn't
do it to tick him off... I just wanted to take a good idea and make it
better. Now, he's got his panties in a bunch over the fact that I'm
trying to take credit for the entire proof; he didn't even send in any
proof like I had advised him, until I told him that I e-mailed in the
corrected version to AMS.
I just want to know that we both took part in a nice, neat proof, and that
someone is satisfied with the results... it was a collaboration.