bio | website | gowers.wordpress.com |
---|---|---|
location | ||
age | ||
visits | member for | 5 years, 10 months |
seen | May 22 at 10:59 | |
stats | profile views | 32,847 |
Mathematics professor at Cambridge
Feb
27 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Feb
26 |
revised |
Different ways of proving that two sets are equal
deleted 1 characters in body |
Feb
26 |
answered | Different ways of proving that two sets are equal |
Feb
26 |
awarded | Nice Question |
Feb
26 |
comment |
Heuristic argument for the prime number theorem?
That may indeed be exactly what I am looking for. I'll have to digest it carefully to see. |
Feb
26 |
asked | Heuristic argument for the prime number theorem? |
Feb
25 |
revised |
Definition of longest common subsequences
Changed "it's" to "its" |
Feb
25 |
answered | Various concepts of “closure” or “completion” in mathematics |
Feb
24 |
comment |
Value of “of course” in the mathematical literature
Was it by any chance me? Probably not, but it is something I have often said. But I didn't think it up for myself -- I got it from David Preiss. It's useful not just for evaluating the work of others, but also one's own work. That is, if you've just written a proof of something but don't feel quite secure about it, look for the bits where you didn't give full detail. |
Feb
20 |
answered | Similarly Ordered |
Feb
20 |
answered | Non-principal ultrafilters on ω |
Feb
16 |
answered | Problem equivalent to “largest square in a cube” |
Feb
8 |
awarded | Nice Question |
Feb
7 |
comment |
alternative construction of the quotient group
I don't claim it's a good way of doing things, but one could (in desperation) argue that here one is defining quotients in just one situation (what you need to define a group in terms of generators and relations) and getting all quotients out of it. But I wouldn't want to go to the wall on this one ... |
Feb
7 |
answered | alternative construction of the quotient group |
Feb
5 |
answered | Yet more on distortion |
Feb
3 |
asked | Is this a well-known probabilistic model? |
Feb
3 |
comment |
Why does the Riemann zeta function have non-trivial zeros?
That is a very useful comment -- thanks! |
Feb
2 |
comment |
Why does the Riemann zeta function have non-trivial zeros?
That was another of the thoughts that lay behind my question. Somehow the fact that the distribution of primes can't be "better than random" feels like a fact that ought to have an elementary proof using some Parseval-like identity. I suspect the zeta function is sort of doing that (with a Mellin transform rather than a Fourier transform), but it doesn't appear to be saying something simple like, "That function has the same L_2 norm and trivially has L_2 norm at least the square root of n." |
Feb
1 |
awarded | Nice Question |