Related papers: A quantitative version of the Roth-Ridout theorem
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors, due a gap in the proof of the main Theorem.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a crucial errors.
This paper has been withdrawn due to errors in the analysis of data with Carrier Access Rate control and statistical methodologies.
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors, due to a mistake pointed out by Lenny Ng and Josh Sabloff.
Withdrawn due to critical error.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to some errors.
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors
This paper has been withdrawn due to non-clearness of some technical points, as well as lack of a reasonable statement of quantization conjecture.
This paper is incorrect, and has been withdrawn by the author.
The paper is withdrawn due to an error in Section 2.
This paper was withdrawn by the author. It turns out that similar ideas have been presented before. The author apologizes.
This paper has been withdrawn due to a crucial theoretical and experimental error.
This paper has been withdrawn because Proposition 2.2 (c) is false. This invalids the main results of section 2 and 3. We thank A. Canonaco for pointing us the error.
This paper has been withdrawn.
The paper has been withdrawn by the author because the result obtained has been reported earlier by other authors.
This paper is withdrawn by the author due to a critical error in the proof of the main theorem, Theorem 3.10. (More specifically the identity (5.18) is incorrect in that the $T^*S^1(2)$-factor is missing in the right hand side of the…
Withdrawn by the authors due to an error in the proof of the finite field result (Thm. 1.5): The random primes used in the proof need NOT avoid the exceptional primes from Lemma 2.7, thus leaving Thm. 1.5 unproved.
The paper is withdrawn by the authors and replaced be an improved and extended version arxiv: 0812.2968
This paper has been withdrawn by the author, due to an error in relation (11).
This paper has been withdrawn due to a critical error near equation (71). This error causes the entire argument of the paper to collapse. Emmanuel Candes of Stanford discovered the error, and has suggested a correct analysis, which will be…