Timeline for Proof of the weak Goldbach Conjecture
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2013 at 11:53 | comment | added | H A Helfgott | Er, yes. See section 1.2, "History", of majarcs.pdf, and section 1.2, "History", of minarcs.pdf, as well as the first and second paragraphs of each paper. | |
| May 15, 2013 at 1:02 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | Perhaps I travel in different circles than pooper, but the theorems of Vinogradov and Chen were among the first things I learned after hearing of the existence of the Goldbach problem. Isn't it common, when introducing a famous open problem, to describe roughly how far we've come? | |
| May 14, 2013 at 20:43 | comment | added | H A Helfgott | I actually disagree (in good faith I think) with pooper: I do think analytic number theorists who don't care a fig about explicit constants would find several things in what I've done to be of interest. I just gave a talk highlighting the more conceptual bits. At any rate, I'll make the obvious point that not just Vinogradov but also Hardy and Littlewood deserve credit as initiators here. | |
| May 14, 2013 at 19:44 | comment | added | user9072 | First, it was said (in some sense even twice!) before your answer and is mentioned very prominently in the paper itself (by line 8 or so). Second, if you are so little informed about the actual content of the paper as to not even being able to give any type of substantive information that might remotely qualify as an answer to the (first) question, it is really unclear to me why anybody should care about your impression. (If you could but did not this seems even worse.) | |
| May 14, 2013 at 18:38 | comment | added | pooper | "It needs to be iterated once again" because most people who ask questions about Goldbach are not aware of Vinogradov's work. The second point I was trying to make is that I am of the impression that while very nice and striking, this work, will not have repercussions for analytic number theorists unconcerned with explicit estimates (something people unaware of the first point typically ignore). I would be surprised if Harald disagreed (in good faith) with me. | |
| May 14, 2013 at 16:57 | comment | added | H A Helfgott | Not to be an anti-pooper, but, actually, most of the ideas and improvements in my proof are qualitative rather than quantitative. I'm not an explicit person by training, and I have no doubt that careful specialists could improve on some of the constants within the proof by being more clever than I was. One of several "morals" of the story (not really new, but more people should be aware of it) is the close relationship between bilinear forms, the circle method and the large sieve. Of course, Vinogradov was working before the development of the large sieve. | |
| May 14, 2013 at 15:30 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | As in party-pooper, I suppose (for those who don't know the English expression: someone who acts in a way to dampen enthusiasm). | |
| May 14, 2013 at 11:42 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | But pooper is at least living up to his or her name! | |
| May 14, 2013 at 10:15 | comment | added | user9072 | "It needs to be iterated once again,..." Why? And, you do not answer the question. | |
| May 14, 2013 at 9:15 | history | answered | pooper | CC BY-SA 3.0 |