The people who write headlines and subheads for science magazines don't care about what's in the articles! Check out this title in Quanta:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/black-holes-finally-proven-mathematically-stable-20220804/
Then the article says
"So far, stability has only been proved for slowly rotating black holes — where the ratio of the black hole’s angular momentum to its mass is much less than 1. It has not yet been demonstrated that rapidly rotating black holes are also stable."
(1/n)
So, maybe in 10 years we'll see another article with the same title, where the title is actually true!
Btw, the proof uses contradiction, so I wonder if it's constructively valid. If the theorem is "there exists no T such that the solution cannot be continued past time T", this could be a "refutation by contradiction", which is constructively valid.
(But the proof is > 900 pages long, so there could be lots of other issues with it.)
(2/n, n = 2)
@johncarlosbaez ratio of angular momentum to mass… that's a length times a velocity. I guess they use dimensionless units, with c as velocity, and the Schwartzschild radius as length?
