bio | website | gowers.wordpress.com |
---|---|---|
location | ||
age | ||
visits | member for | 5 years |
seen | Mar 16 at 23:40 | |
stats | profile views | 30,661 |
Mathematics professor at Cambridge
Jun 6 |
awarded | Favorite Question |
May 24 |
awarded | Popular Question |
May 9 |
comment |
Are there any very hard unknots?
Thank you for this example. It's quite interesting as it is in some sense a "product" of smaller knots. I tried replacing the bundles of strands (most of the time four strands) by a single strand and obtained a picture of a knot that I can't instantly see to be the unknot, though I did find a local way of reducing the number of crossings. If this "quotient" knot is not the unknot, then it's a very interesting example. |
Mar 30 |
awarded | Good Answer |
Mar 29 |
comment |
What can be proved about the Ramanujan conjecture using elementary means?
I don't mind complex analysis, but I'm wondering whether a "non-structural" proof is possible. Without saying precisely what I mean by that, I would say that modular forms are on the wrong side of the boundary. |
Mar 29 |
revised |
What can be proved about the Ramanujan conjecture using elementary means?
added 164 characters in body |
Mar 29 |
revised |
What can be proved about the Ramanujan conjecture using elementary means?
added 619 characters in body |
Mar 29 |
comment |
What can be proved about the Ramanujan conjecture using elementary means?
Ah, I see the point now. OK, I'll go back and add a condition. |
Mar 29 |
comment |
What can be proved about the Ramanujan conjecture using elementary means?
I'm taking $1-q^{a_r}$, and not $1+(-q)^{a_r}$. |
Mar 29 |
awarded | Nice Question |
Mar 29 |
asked | What can be proved about the Ramanujan conjecture using elementary means? |
Mar 2 |
awarded | Popular Question |
Mar 2 |
awarded | Good Question |
Feb 7 |
awarded | Good Answer |
Nov 28 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Nov 22 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Oct 26 |
comment |
Believing the Conjectures
Going back to your hypothetical Tsirelson story, I still don't see what Maximize adds to it. Why not just say that if you've tried hard to prove a conjecture, it becomes more reasonable to doubt it, regardless of what that conjecture looks like? (This doesn't apply to all conjectures: for example, our failure to prove the twin prime conjecture doesn't suggest that it might be false, since there are good heuristic reasons to expect both that it is true and that it is hard to prove.) |
Oct 26 |
comment |
Believing the Conjectures
This discussion, which I find very interesting by the way, leaves me with the feeling that I don't understand very well what the rules of thumb are really saying and what their purpose is. I agree about Banach space theory: in some ways it is a very structureless subject, because any old bunch of functionals can be used to define a norm (as long as you've got enough of them that you don't have just a seminorm), but from time to time it springs surprises -- the almost negligible constraints nevertheless interestingly restrict what you can do. |
Oct 26 |
comment |
Believing the Conjectures
The general point I'm making here is that in this context it's the mathematics that tells us to what extent Maximize is an appropriate principle, rather than the principle that is guiding our mathematical expectations. |
Oct 26 |
comment |
Believing the Conjectures
Is Tsirelson's space an example of the success of Maximize? Again, I have my doubts. Before his example, it was reasonable to try to prove that every space did contain $c_0$ or $\ell_p$ -- all known spaces did, sometimes for quite non-trivial reasons. I would contend that it was only after (i) a failure, despite considerable efforts, to prove positive theorems and (ii) Tsirelson's example that it became reasonable to believe quite strongly that if you can't easily prove something about a general Banach space, then it is probably false. And there have been counterexamples to that principle ... |