Talk:K-Theory

From Eureka

The first paragraph says that "In August 2007 most of the editors" resigned. The second paragraph refers to Lueck and Ranicki as "two editors [...] who had not signed the resignation letter". A careless reader might draw the conclusion that some of the editors, in particular Ranicki and Lueck, had not resigned. However, Ranicki certainly did resign (as detailed in his solo statement of 18 August 2007). In a comment on Not Even Wrong, Bak says "all members of the editorial board [...] resigned in writing. In this regard Prof. Ranicki and I are in agreement".

So I think someone should rewrite the summary to avoid the suggestion that not all the editors resigned. I know that wouldn't be a logical deduction from what's currently written, but I can see how it might confuse or mislead people, which obviously we don't want to do. I'm not going to edit it myself right now, because I haven't got the situation totally straight in my head and I don't want to insert inaccuracies. --Tleinster 21:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

It's complicated, because Lueck and Ranicki resigned, but not along with the other editors, so they didn't sign the letter quoted in this article (take a look). Furthermore, they have agreed to stay on for now, to process manuscripts submitted after April 2006 — so in some sense their resignation has not yet taken effect. (The earlier rumor about not all the editors having resigned in writing seems to be a red herring; I've deleted that.) I tried to be terse without being too misleading, but I realize this is hard and I might have failed. All the data I know is contained in the letters that appear in this article. So, if anyone thinks they can improve the precision of my wording without making it too verbose, I'd be very happy. --John Baez

OK, I've screwed up my courage and had a go at rewording it. (If anyone tries to sue me for a million dollars, they're going to be sorely disappointed :-) ) See what you think. --Tleinster 12:29, 20 August 2007 (EDT)