8,562 reputation
11103189
bio website gilkalai.wordpress.com
location Jerusalem
age 58
visits member for 4 years, 5 months
seen 6 hours ago
Professor of Mathematics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and at Yale University

7h
comment Why was John Nash's 1950 Game Theory paper such a big deal?
Dear Joël, I agree. To a large extent Nash equilibrium is a miracle concept leading to (almost) all the problems in applied game theory. It often represents genuine problems and shortcomings not only of economics theory but also of economics reality. Certainly this is something we, as mathematicians can celebrate and be enthusiastic about!
Mar
28
comment First PhD in pure math and the second PhD in applied math
I am aware of several such cases. (Prhaps in Israel and Europe there is more flexibility.)
Mar
17
comment Infinitely many primes, and Mobius randomness in sparse sets
Dear Joro, Yes, I think we need to regard it as artificial. Probably Problems 2 and 3 are more "imune" against such examples.
Jan
30
comment Is there an analog of Sperner's lemma for the Hopf invariant?
Lovely question!
Jan
30
comment Logic in mathematics and philosophy
Many thanks Joel, for your answer. As a graet fan (albeit rather ignorant) of both areas (and also of Y. Gurevich) I am certainly happy to hear on stengthening relations between philosophy and set theory/logic.
Jan
19
comment Semi-directed first-passage percolation on $\mathbb{Z}^2$ with deterministic vertical weights
Nice and natural model!
Jan
12
comment Floors of rationals to powers: Infinite number of primes?
Thanks a lot, Lucia and Victor.
Jan
8
comment Mathematical study of Mpemba effect?
I certainly support and encourage questions of this type on MO.
Jan
6
comment How to start Game theory?
This is a great book!
Jan
4
comment Submission of papers to ArXiv or similar
ok, sorry, thanks guys
Jan
4
comment Submission of papers to ArXiv or similar
It will also be probably appropriate to ask here if your more exact formula is new, likely to be correct, etc. (while presenting it). I am not familiar with vixra.org but if you want your paper to be "recorded," and if there is no endorsement needed, I dont see why it is not advisable.
Jan
3
comment Floors of rationals to powers: Infinite number of primes?
Dear Lec: "Heuristics is, of course, in favor of the conjecture," why is that?
Jan
3
comment Floors of rationals to powers: Infinite number of primes?
What is known about $[n^r]$?
Dec
30
comment centrally symmetric neighborly polytopes.
The question is not clear. What do you assume on Q? is it a convex hull of some vertices of P?
Dec
29
comment How to resolve a disagreement about a mathematical proof?
Umbra, it can be useful if you tell us how things developed. (Again in general terms.)
Dec
29
comment Interesting result on the Euler-Maschroni constant - what is the background?
The following blog post on Euler's constant on Lipton-Regan's blog rjlipton.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/eulers-constants featuring this paper of Jeff Lagarias arxiv.org/abs/1303.1856 might be of some relevance.
Dec
27
comment Ultrafilter-based Fourier-Walsh-like Functions
Dear Bjørn, The "General question" applies also to the first part and it will be very interesting to find nice applications for the W_Gs and W_Fs. (Of course, even if separated into two we can add this general question to both parts.) Maybe it will be easiest if you simply answer also the second part :).
Dec
24
comment Examples of major theorems with very hard proofs that have NOT dramatically improved over time
One way to regard this question is as a wish list: "A hard major theorem I would like to be simplified!"
Dec
24
comment Examples of major theorems with very hard proofs that have NOT dramatically improved over time
I vaguely remember that Deligne's proof and some new approaches/simplifications were discussed, but maybe it was in a different question. It is certainly a good answer!
Dec
24
comment Examples of major theorems with very hard proofs that have NOT dramatically improved over time
From my perspective, the Feit-Thompson theorem is "very hard" on its own, and it will be great if a simpler proof will be found. Strangely, I am not entirely sure if I regard the proof of the four-color theorem as "very hard" but certinly a different shorter proof that we can understand in details will be absolutely great!