>>>> Quoting John lott :
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Huai-Dong,
>>>>>
>>>>> I wrote to you a week ago about an issue concerning your paper
>>>>> with
>>>>> Zhu. So far I have not received a response. Bruce and I view
>>>>> this as
>>>>> a serious matter. If we do not hear from you or Xi-ping Zhu by
>>>>> Monday,
>>>>> July 31, then we will assume that you do not intend to respond.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours truly,
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, John lott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Huai-Dong,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for sending the copy of your paper. I have
>>>>>> not had time to read all of it yet, but am puzzled about
>>>>>> the following point.
>>>>>> In the introduction it is written "We would like to
>>>>>> point out that our proof of the singularity structure theorem
>>>>>> (Theorem 7.1.1) is different from that of Perelman in two
>>>>>> aspects: (1) we avoid using his crucial estimate in Claim 2 in
>>>>>> Section 12.1 of [103]; (2) we give a new approach to extend
the
>>>>>> limit backward in time to an ancient solution. These
>>>>>> differences are due to the difficulties in
>>>>>> understanding Perelman's arguments at these points."
>>>>>> In so writing, it is implied that you are providing an
>>>>>> original alternative argument to deal with Perelman's
>>>>>> Claim 2. In fact, the alternative argument presented on pages
>>>>>> 400-402 is essentially the same as the one in
>>>>>> our "Notes on Perelman's Paper", which was first posted on our
>>>>>> website
>>>>>> http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/research/ricciflow/perelman.html
>>>>>> in June of 2003. (This part of the Notes was not changed
>>>>>> in later versions. The February 2004 version, and some
>>>>>> subsequent versions, can be seen on the Wayback Machine at
>>>>>> http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/
>>>>>> research/ricciflow/perelman.html)
>>>>>> The only mention of our Notes in your paper seems to be the
>>>>>> sentence in the introduction "We remark that there have also
>>>>>> appeared several sets of notes on Perelman's work, including the
>>>>>> one written by B. Kleiner and J. Lott [78], which cover part of
>>>>>> the materials that are needed for the geometrization program."
>>>>>> In particular, the alternative argument for Claim 2 is
>>>>>> presented as in your paper as original work, and is not
>>>>>> attributed to Bruce and me.
>>>>>> Furthermore, pages 400-402 of your paper reproduce entire
>>>>>> passages from our notes, with minor modifications. Attached
>>>>>> are files c.dvi and c.pdf with a side-by-side comparison. The
>>>>>> left hand column is from the June 2003 version of our notes.
>>>>>> The right hand column is from your paper. The material in
>>>>>> boldface was copied, again without proper attribution. (No
>>>>>> similar phrases appear in Perelman's paper.)
>>>>>> I am quite disturbed by this and await your explanation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yours truly,
>>>>>> John