Timeline for Can you prove equivalence without being able to calculate it?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 30 at 19:26 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 11, 2021 at 19:39 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Stefan Kohl♦ | ||
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Mar 15, 2010 at 15:15 | answer | added | Seamus | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 31, 2010 at 3:48 | vote | accept | Daniel Moskovich | ||
| Jan 25, 2010 at 22:08 | answer | added | daniel pehoushek | timeline score: -2 | |
| Jan 9, 2010 at 10:45 | answer | added | Philip Brooker | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 9, 2010 at 9:23 | answer | added | Matt | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 9, 2010 at 5:04 | answer | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | timeline score: 16 | |
| Jan 7, 2010 at 23:06 | history | edited | Daniel Moskovich | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
stronger -> weaker
|
| Jan 7, 2010 at 17:32 | comment | added | Matt Noonan | Wouldn't you say that such examples show how much weaker "proving something" is relative to "calculating something"? After all, a calculation is itself a proof, so if the proof doesn't induce a calculation then it must be somehow weaker. This would also fit with the intuition that there are more weak things than strong things (each answer to this question providing an example!). | |
| Jan 7, 2010 at 17:13 | answer | added | Lennart Meier | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 7, 2010 at 10:58 | answer | added | Kevin Buzzard | timeline score: 21 | |
| Jan 7, 2010 at 3:36 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 19 | |
| Jan 7, 2010 at 1:51 | answer | added | François G. Dorais | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jan 7, 2010 at 1:26 | answer | added | Ryan Budney | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 7, 2010 at 1:19 | history | asked | Daniel Moskovich | CC BY-SA 2.5 |