Plagiarism by Cao/Zhu paper on Poincare ?

Here is an update on my previous posting on the Poincare conjectures.

Click here for a pdf file Jeremy Morgan emailed me yesterday. Its quite clear that on reading it that not only did they copy the same argument/idea from Kleiner/Lott paper, but even the sentence construction is same at many places. In the pdf file, the left column is the stuff from Kleiner/Lott paper posted at www.arxiv.org and the right column is the stuff from Cao/Zhu paper posted at Asian Journal of Mathematics. Read it and form your own opinion.

Remember how the media was going boo-boo over Kavya Vishwanathan ? I don't know if there will be the same reaction this time. Kavya was a teenager, could be easily intimidated and hence a soft target for the media. Kavya claimed that the similaritites were "completely unintentional" and that she "internalized" the details. Cao/Zhu in their erratum claims that they had "forgotten" that they had studied and "incorporated" Kleiner/Lott work in their notes!

Personallly, I don't see ANY difference between Kavya and Cao/Zhu. If the former was bashed for plagiarism, so should the latter. Atleast the latter could have displayed some maturity gained out of age. I wonder what Yau's role is in all this. He definitely seems to be knowing Kleiner/Lott work and even comments on their work in his 24 page review article “Structure of Three-Manifolds — PoincarĂ© and geometrization conjectures”. In the article, he mentions

In the last three years, many mathematicians have attempted to see whether the ideas of Hamilton and Perelman can hold together. Kleiner and Lott (in 2004) posted on their web page some notes on several parts of Perelman’s work. However, these notes were far from complete. After the work of Cao-Zhu was accepted and announced by the journal in April, 2006 (it was distributed on June 1, 2006). On May 24, 2006, Kleiner and Lott put up another, more complete, version of their notes. Their approach is different from Cao-Zhu’s. It will take some time to understand their notes which seem to be sketchy at several important points.
Yeah right, their approach is different from Cao-Zhu modulo a couple of arguments and sentences used to fill in Perelman's approach.