Timeline for How helpful is non-standard analysis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2023 at 10:17 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http -> https (the question was bumped anyway)
|
| Jul 27, 2022 at 20:30 | comment | added | Gary Moon | Do any of Arkeryd's papers explicitly employ nonstandard methods outside of the couple expository/survey-type articles on NSA? Or does he generally employ nonstandard methods "behind the scenes"? | |
| Jul 27, 2022 at 19:09 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Title of Arkeryd's piece; JStor -> DOI link
|
| Oct 5, 2021 at 18:17 | comment | added | Zach Teitler | I've learned (thanks to a explanation kindly emailed to me by Mikhail Katz) that "whig history" is a term describing certain narratives of history. The Wikipedia article on "whig history" describes it as "an approach to historiography that presents history as a journey from a dark and terrible past to a 'glorious present'", and explains the idea of "whig history" including in the context of scientific history. It doesn't mean that the development of non-standard analysis influenced the historical development of the Whigs or anything like that! | |
| Oct 4, 2021 at 16:06 | comment | added | Zach Teitler | Did you say "Robinson's work also occasioned a critical re-evaluation of whig history dominated by a reductive epsilontist agenda."? Really? Like "Whig" as in the political party? Can you please explain what you mean?? | |
| Apr 8, 2013 at 12:15 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | You are putting words in my mouth. Most people know that wiki is a work in progress. If this claim was deleted, there must have been good reasons for this. Since posting material on wiki involves little personal responsibility, it is inappropriate to rely on negative claims made there. My objection to Huntsman's presentation of his comment stands. | |
| Apr 8, 2013 at 11:51 | comment | added | Willie Wong | I make no comment on the verity of the sentiments expressed by that quote. I take issue with your statement "In fact, I was unable to find such a claim there", which for better or for worse sounds like you are accusing Steve Huntsman of fabricating the quote out of thin air. | |
| Apr 8, 2013 at 11:18 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added link to Arkeryd
|
| Apr 8, 2013 at 11:12 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | The version you cite dates from 2010. The claim was as false in 2010 as it is in 2013. It is not appropriate to hide behind anynomous claims posted in the public domain if such claims are incorrect. | |
| Apr 8, 2013 at 11:09 | comment | added | Willie Wong | (BTW, several of the results you mention are already discussed in the various other answers to this question below, and it would be great if you can add links to the ones which aren't [for example, a link or actual citation reference to the relevant papers of Arkeryd would be wonderful!]) | |
| Apr 8, 2013 at 11:01 | comment | added | Willie Wong | @katz: Wikipedia evolves. See the version from which Steve Huntsman quoted when he wrote his answer three years ago: en.wikipedia.org/w/… | |
| Apr 8, 2013 at 9:53 | history | answered | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |