While I'm positive that stories about math at the level of sophistication described here require some technical underpinning which the writer and editors may potentially lack and which therefore make it both more difficult to be aware of them (to know to report on them in the first place) but also to objectively lay out the topic, from a journalistic perspective, this particular story, which references prior work by Benedict Gross, should have at least mentioned, as a caveat, the relationship between Quanta as a publisher and Gross's position as an advisory board member to it.
While Gross's bona fides are certainly not in question given the topic or his distinguished career, what, if any, was his involvement with the piece? Did he suggest it? Did he provide background? (I notice he wasn't directly quoted, which makes me wonder even further). Was he paid? There's certainly the possibility that something potentially not quite kosher may be going on here (even if it is just free publicity for him and his past work, particularly given that the final result discussed here hasn't been published or independently verified), and not providing at least a mention of the relationship from an editorial standpoint is a glaring error.
Aside from this small journalistic oversight, I otherwise laud Quanta for consistently providing interesting, entertaining, and timely coverage of the world of math and science in such a fantastic fashion. Helping to humanize and even idolize mathematicians and scientists should be a more common effort in our society.
Given the somewhat broad nature of the readership and range of backgrounds, for those who may not have the high level of background for reading the related papers (once they're publicly available) yet, many may be interested in knowing that Dr. Gross has an excellent and free online series of lectures on basic abstract algebra available (http:/
Cross posted as: https:/