CHAPTER 471: CHAPTER 152: PROOF OF THE INFINITY OF PRIME PAIRS WITH A DIFFERENCE OF 6_3

It was precisely this statement that made Andrew Wiles no longer refuse and gladly agreed to become the reviewer of this paper.

Subsequently, Andrew Wiles began to constantly email Lott Degen.

The gist of the first email was: This article indeed has some very interesting ideas.

In the second email, the article has many innovative, if not revolutionary, ideas, which might be correct.

The third email said he seems to be right; I have tried hard to find flaws but have not succeeded yet. Perhaps I need to scrutinize each word to find faults.

The fourth email stated: I have to admit Pierre Delini seems to be right; this paper could open a new era because it seems I can’t find any faults. I can’t wait to know who the author of the paper is! So the paper is accepted!

Lott Degen replied to Andrew Wiles with an email, conveniently sending over Qiao Yu’s current achievements.

Then he forwarded these four emails from Andrew Wiles to Pierre Delini.

After all, there was nothing private in that information, and he had also directly sought Andrew Wiles’ opinion with just one sentence.

"Thank you very much, Professor Wiles. I will inform Professor Delini of your comments on this paper and Pierre’s evaluation. He will surely feel that you have once again become kindred spirits in mutual understanding."

Soon, Pierre Delini gave him feedback.

"My opinion basically aligns with Andrew’s, so you can spread my evaluation further."

...

Generally speaking, the higher ranked the journal, the longer the peer review process. Especially for mathematical papers, a peer review cycle measured in years is not uncommon.

Of course, it’s not that reviewers intentionally drag out the time; the key issue is that articles capable of being published in such journals either solve major problems or contribute new ideas, and their proof processes are often very intricate.

From the editorial standpoint, the more important the paper, the more cautious editors are when selecting reviewers.

After all, establishing academic credibility is difficult, but destroying it is easy. A few instances are enough.

It’s like some journals which could get printed as long as everyone pays the page fees, and such journals become recognized within the industry as low-quality. As soon as people see the journal name, they can roughly understand what’s going on.

However, with both Andrew Wiles and Pierre Delini almost simultaneously providing acceptance feedback for the paper, Lott Degen feels that Qiao Yu and Chen Zhuoyang’s paper should be able to be published by November.

After all, these two papers are not very lengthy, totaling only twenty-five pages.

Professor Wiles, despite his advanced age, could review them so quickly, so there should be even less of an issue for other reviewers.

Of course, he dare not urge too much, but to ensure that if the other four reviewers can complete the review by this month, it could be published in November, he directly called the editor in charge of typesetting...

"Hi, John, I hope you can help with something... just prepare the next issue’s typesetting for two papers. I’ve sent you an email; please expedite the proofreading of the two papers in the attachment.

Yes, reserve the front page. If these two papers are approved before the end of this month, then put them in the November issue of the magazine."

Okay, actually this isn’t too much of an exaggeration. Qiao Yu hasn’t broken Zhang Yuantang’s record yet.

His paper on primes with bounded gaps took only three weeks to be accepted, setting the fastest acceptance record in Ann.Math’s over 130-year history at that time.

If Qiao Yu’s paper can be published in November, it would likely rank in the top three in terms of publication speed.

Of course, all this is not without expectations.

Journals have always achieved mutual success with quality papers. Once Qiao Yu expressed his ambitions to Lott Degen, Lott Degen naturally hoped that all papers regarding the generalized modal number theory axioms could be published in Ann.Math.

After all, the mathematics community recognizes the top four journals, not just the top one. A luxurious and highly efficient review team is also a manifestation of competitiveness for top-tier journals.

Qiao Yu is a very smart person, and Lott Degen believes that this future star of mathematics can understand his painstaking efforts.

...

At this time, Qiao Yu didn’t have time to think about these matters, nor did he communicate with Lott Degen.

Anyway, according to Ann.Math’s past publication timeline, even if his paper could be published in November, it would at least be mid-month.

The Huaxia Mathematics Annual Meeting is to be held at the beginning of November. It certainly won’t be in time, so he hadn’t considered when the paper could be published.

His focus is entirely on quickly writing the paper and submitting it to Director Tian, and dealing with the presentation matters first.

After all, having confidence and completing the paper are two different things. The paper primarily includes three key points.

First is the modal geometrization of prime gaps. The original issue with prime gaps is: in the prime pair (p, p′), there exist infinitely many pairs of primes satisfying p′−p=d, where d is a fixed value.

Transformed into whether there exist infinitely many modal points (r_p, r_p’) in the Modal Space M satisfying the modal distance d_M(r_p, r_p’) = d.

The reasonableness of this transformation needs to be proven first, and this part directly borrows from a small portion of his paper submitted to Ann.Math...

This section directly quotes some theorems from the paper submitted to Ann.Math.

The second part is to prove a key theorem: in the Modal Space M, there exists a modal path Γ, such that the upper bound of the modal distance d_M(r_p, r_q) can be lowered to a single digit. Meanwhile, a density analysis of the points on the modal path is performed, providing verification results.