A rejoinder to Hale's article (Q1343290)

The Kepler conjecture states that the maximum density of any packing of unit spheres in Euclidean 3-space is \(\pi/ \sqrt {18}\). This density is attained, e.g., if the centres of the spheres are the points of a face-centred cubic lattice of edge-length \(\sqrt 8\). In an extensive paper, the author claimed to give a complete proof of this conjecture [J. Math. 4, No. 5, 739-831 (1993; Zbl 0844.52017)]. \textit{T. C. Hales} published a critical review on the author's article [Math. Intell. 16, No. 3, 47-58 (1994; Zbl 0844.52018)], in which he conceded that the author offers a very detailed strategy for solving the problem, but raised substantial objections to the methods of proof employed. The paper under review comprises a list of eight `Objections' taken from Hales' article, each followed by a `Response'. The author dismisses all of these objections while attempting to justify his original line of argumentation. Unfortunately, the arguments he uses to do so, involve phrases of a rather indefinite meaning, such as ``This situation is more critical than others'' or ``Straightforward computation will show that. ...'', without any further explanation. This also applies in instances where difficulties are to be expected, e.g. in dealing with the pivotal and rather intricate problem of finding lower bounds to the total buckling heights in the nonuniform case. Such lower bounds are dealt with under Lemma 7 and Lemma 8, which together form the basis for the proof of both the Kepler Conjecture and the (weaker) conjecture regarding the dodecahedral bound to the density of a packing of spheres. Response 4 and 8 refer to this point. Here again, however, the reader is left with a rather vague remark: ``The computations involved in the verification will consist of rather simple spherical trigonometry, together with straightforward accountings of area estimates...'' In order to be accepted, a stringent, conclusive mathematical proof must enable the reader to follow it in every detail. To satisfy this basic requirement, there is a lot of work that still needs to be done in the case of the author's proof.