Related papers: "A combinatorial universal $\star$-product" is inc…
Error in proof of theorem 10.
This paper has been withdrawn due to a critical error discovered in Theorem 4.21. Anyone with a historical or pragamatic interest in prior "negative results", however - e.g., failed proof attempts relating to the (in)consistency of ZF or…
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors; the main conclusion is incorrect, as some of the crucial calculations were not properly converged.
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors, due to a mistake pointed out by Lenny Ng and Josh Sabloff.
withdrawed due to a substantial error.
This paper has been withdrawn by author due to an error in the proof.
The paper was withdrawn by the author. It contained various errors.
This paper has been withdrawn due a crucial mistake due to a crucial mistake in the proof of Lemma 2.3.
We correct Definition 6.3, Proposition 6.7, and Section 7 in the published version of our paper.
This paper corrects an error in the authors' earlier work, by proving stronger forms of the basic lemmas
We fill in a gap in the proof of the main theorem in our earlier paper [Ol]. At the same time, we prove a slightly stronger version of the theorem needed for another paper.
All priors are not created equal. There are right and there are wrong priors. That is the main conclusion of this contribution. I use, a cooked-up example designed to create drama, and a typical textbook example to show the pervasiveness of…
This paper has been withdrawn due to a photometric calibration error.
The paper has been withdrawn due to an error in Lemma 1.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author because Lemma 3 is incorrect. This mistake is crucial in this paper.
The "paradox" arises in the Two Envelopes Paradox from the incorrect formulation of the argument. The infomation given is misused and therefore the results are incorrect for the question asked. The key is to be clear on what question we are…
Unfortunately, after an imprudent sumbission of the paper to the e-print archive, I discovered in it many serious mistakes. So I draw back it .
This paper has been withdrawn by the author, due an error in the proof of Proposion 2.13.
Forming the product of two geometric spaces is one of the most basic operations in geometry, but in the spectral-triple formulation of non-commutative geometry, the standard prescription for taking the product of two real spectral triples…
This note corrects a minor misstatement in section 2 of the paper in the title (arXiv:0808.3426). It also addresses some related issues. The error does not affect the main results of that paper, but nevertheless this corrigendum seems…