Paper detail

Why is Helfenstein's claim about equichordal points false?

This article explains why a paper by Heinz G. Helfenstein entitled "Ovals with equichordal points", published in J.London Math.Soc.31, 54-57, 1956, is incorrect. We point out a computational error which renders his conclusions invalid. More importantly, we explain that the method cannot be used to solve the equichordal point problem with the method presented there. Today, there is a solution to the problem: Marek R. Rychlik, "A complete solution to the equichordal point problem of Fujiwara, Blaschke, Rothe and Weizenböck", Inventiones Mathematicae 129 (1), 141-212, 1997. However, some mathematicians still point to Helfenstein's paper as a plausible path to a simpler solution. We show that Helfenstein's method cannot be salvaged. The fact that Helfenstein's argument is not correct was known to Wirsing, but he did not explicitly point out the error. This article points out the error and the reasons for the failure of Helfenstein's approach in an accessible, and hopefully enjoyable way.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.