Timeline for Philosophy behind Yitang Zhang's work on the Twin Primes Conjecture
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2019 at 13:06 | comment | added | JP McCarthy | I can't believe this breakthrough was nearly six years ago already. | |
| Jul 19, 2013 at 4:53 | history | protected | François G. Dorais | ||
| Jun 5, 2013 at 10:21 | answer | added | Russ Woodroofe | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 4, 2013 at 6:22 | answer | added | v08ltu | timeline score: 36 | |
| May 22, 2013 at 12:33 | comment | added | Niemi | I believe that it's Andrew, not Andre. | |
| May 22, 2013 at 12:21 | history | edited | pageman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor edit
|
| May 22, 2013 at 2:25 | comment | added | Chandan Singh Dalawat | Here is Kowalski's take on it, with the correct spelling of Yıldırım : blogs.ethz.ch/kowalski/2013/05/21/bounded-gaps-between-primes | |
| May 21, 2013 at 16:01 | answer | added | Ben Green | timeline score: 42 | |
| May 20, 2013 at 14:12 | comment | added | user9072 | @provocateur: it is not quite clear to me what about my 'answer' you find 'quite inaccurate.' Except it contains several typing and language errors; if you mean this, sorry about the slopiness and my ignorance. Else, please, clarify what you mean if you want a reply. But please on meta (link at the top) not here. | |
| May 20, 2013 at 13:47 | comment | added | provocateur | Quid, your answer is quite inaccurate at it's a bit embarrassing to see comments like yours posted here. | |
| May 20, 2013 at 11:09 | vote | accept | pageman | ||
| May 20, 2013 at 10:54 | comment | added | user9072 | @Niloptal Sinha: what is the point of piling on on Garhard Paseman's comment in this way? The general(?) disagreement with it was amply expressed before. And this (type of) question is most definitely not "more than perfectly fitted here" or "perfectly legitimate" (@user32240). It is likely acceptable as an exception. But on the general principle Gehard Pasemen is perfectly right. | |
| May 20, 2013 at 9:49 | history | edited | Stefan Kohl♦ |
Added tag "nt.number-theory".
|
|
| May 20, 2013 at 7:35 | comment | added | Nilotpal Kanti Sinha | @Gerhard Paseman: I would rather NOT ask you about system design but I would definitely ask this question in this forum because if it is more than perfectly fitted here :) | |
| May 20, 2013 at 5:05 | answer | added | Mark Lewko | timeline score: 98 | |
| May 20, 2013 at 5:01 | comment | added | Suvrit | Please don't close it! This question is a good one, and moreover, links to a very nice story worth reading! | |
| May 20, 2013 at 3:59 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | New Scientist reports that Zhang build on the approach in this paper: arxiv.org/abs/math/0512436. See also the notes of the talk here: golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2013/05/…, although this may not qualify as 'philosophy'. | |
| May 20, 2013 at 3:49 | comment | added | Bombyx mori | @Gerhard Paseman: I think this is a perfectly legitimate question on this forum. | |
| May 20, 2013 at 3:41 | comment | added | Joël | I don't know, but after reading the paper at the link given by the OP, it is sure Yitang Zhang would be a perfect answer to the question "major mathematical advances pas age fifty", were it not closed. mathoverflow.net/questions/25630/… | |
| May 20, 2013 at 3:34 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | I think this forum is not a good fit for your question. A slightly better fit would be to ask if there are any other expositions of the work that are accessible. Then again, you could try a web search. Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2013.05.19 | |
| May 20, 2013 at 3:24 | history | asked | pageman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |