I am a mathematician and have been talking with analytic number theorists about Atiyah's proof, and it is the consensus that what he has showed us is not a valid proof. It is of course possible that he will correct these mistakes and write a correct proof, but this seems unlikely, even for someone as brilliant as Atiyah. Atiyah is a fantastic mathematician and has contributed enormously to the field. The mathematical community has an enormous amount of respect for him and I do not think any leading number theorists will go out and publicly say that the ...

I guess if one is really careful in reading the wording of the resolution, we see that even if Gowers authored that comment, this would resolve ambiguous, right? It is written that we will collect all statements from Fields medalists. We do not explicitly say that Atiyah's comment should not be counted. But this is of course not something I think is intended, and I still think this should resolve negative (I predicted this at 1 %)

Relevant analysis by Scott Aaronson: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1720 (My prediction is at 1 %. If it was possible, I would predict an even lower probability)

According to Wikipedia, there have been no vetoed resolutions on Syria for the time period in question.

I would strongly advise against the resolution criterion depending on statements from Fields medalists. I believe many mathematicians, out of respect for Atiyah, will not come out as strong opponents to his proposed proof. For example, Atiyah claims that he has a proof that there are no complex structures on the 6-sphere. This proof is widely seen as wrong or not conforming to the standards of a mathematical proof. However, to my knowledge, there are no public statements from Fields medalists claiming that the proof is incorrect. Even more, there are ver...

@gjm: I do not think either Tao or Gowers will write anything about Atiyah's so called proof. I am of course not sure, but having read the paper, you hardly need the expertise of Tao to see that the argument is faulty. If no Fields medalist comments on the proof, do you think it should resolve ambiguous? In some sense, I feel that is not the spirit of the question, but that interpretation is of course up to you and the community.

My vote is still on closing retroactively.

This resolves negative.