Timeline for Not especially famous, long-open problems which anyone can understand
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3 at 15:30 | comment | added | Felix Schröder | It's worth mentioning that the problem is also known under the name "perfect Euler Brick", see e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_brick | |
| Dec 13, 2023 at 9:05 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Dec 13, 2023 at 10:33 | |||||
| Nov 9, 2022 at 11:30 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http -> https (the question was bumped anyway)
|
| Oct 24, 2019 at 13:46 | history | edited | Nigel Overmars | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Before having the bachelor-master system, there was the kandidaats-doctoraal system in The Netherlands. Kandidaats would be equivalent to the bachelor/undergraduate degree, whereas the doctoraal would be equal to the masters degree. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctoraalexamen
|
| Jul 29, 2019 at 20:40 | history | edited | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed broken link to Van Luijk's thesis
|
| Dec 12, 2017 at 7:22 | comment | added | user21230 | What do you say on following plan for proving that perfect cuboid does not exist. Let $a$ be odd edge being product of different primes. Let $b_n$ be set of integers forming Pythagorean pair with $a$. We should now prove that there are no Pyth. pair within $b_n$. | |
| Dec 7, 2017 at 20:35 | history | edited | BS. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
updated link to van Luijk's "On perfect cuboids" Report MI 2001-12
|
| Oct 26, 2015 at 4:35 | comment | added | Sidharth Ghoshal | What about a brick with sidelength 0? ;) | |
| May 14, 2015 at 14:49 | comment | added | Hauke Reddmann | Arguably, the brick violates the "outside mathematician" condition. I even tried to convince some crank (may one say this word here? :-) not to waste as many of his lifetime to the problem as I did. | |
| Dec 23, 2014 at 0:54 | comment | added | user60665 | Dear @YemonChoi, thank you very much for the insight; my question was just out of curiosity. | |
| Dec 23, 2014 at 0:52 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @Dal I am not a number theorist, but I believe that a solution here would require one to introduce new techniques or make significant improvements to existing techniques. Note that the original question did not ask for questions which were "important to current mathematical research", merely that "There should already exist at least a small community of mathematicians who will care if one of these problems gets solved." | |
| Dec 23, 2014 at 0:48 | comment | added | user60665 | @YemonChoi, could I ask why this open problem is important to current mathematical research? | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 10:00 | history | edited | Yemon Choi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
updated with links to extra references
|
| Jun 22, 2012 at 6:03 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | The solution space forms an algebraic surface in the projectivized space of box dimensions. The surface has rather high degree, and in fact van Luijk showed that it is of general type, (and therefore rather resistant to standard methods). | |
| Jun 22, 2012 at 5:49 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I'm afraid I have no idea (mind you, I can think of no intuitive reason why it wouldn't be hard). Further details at mathworld.wolfram.com/PerfectCuboid.html | |
| Jun 22, 2012 at 5:38 | comment | added | Vectornaut | Because so much has been known about Pythagorean triples for so long, I'm shocked that this problem is open. Is there an intuitive explanation of why the problem is so hard? | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 19:38 | history | answered | Yemon Choi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |