Timeline for Has the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra been proved using just fixed point theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2014 at 3:32 | answer | added | Arne Sjogren | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 18, 2013 at 0:07 | answer | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | timeline score: 15 | |
| Oct 2, 2013 at 12:40 | history | reopened |
Todd Trimble Michael Greinecker HJRW Chris Godsil Ramiro de la Vega |
||
| Oct 2, 2013 at 6:21 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Oct 2, 2013 at 12:41 | |||||
| S Oct 2, 2013 at 5:46 | history | suggested | Benjamin Dickman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removed the word salad (v. 2, really) that side-lined this question initially
|
| Oct 2, 2013 at 5:14 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 2, 2013 at 5:46 | |||||
| Sep 11, 2013 at 13:04 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Sep 11, 2013 at 13:06 | |||||
| Jun 19, 2013 at 16:48 | history | edited | Benjamin Dickman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Seriously overhauled the previous version; please roll-back if this is inappropriate. (See earlier edits for that which was expunged.)
|
| Jun 5, 2013 at 16:51 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | After Todd's clean-up I have cast a vote to re-open | |
| Jun 5, 2013 at 15:56 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Thanks, Benjamin. I saw your shorter edition, which would have been fine as well; I simply wanted to preserve a bit of the outline of Dall'Ara's proof in case it helped anyone who wanted to look at that in conjunction with the prolix embellishments. | |
| Jun 5, 2013 at 15:14 | history | edited | Benjamin Dickman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected spelling of `theorem' in title
|
| Jun 5, 2013 at 15:03 | history | rollback | Benjamin Dickman |
Rollback to Revision 3
|
|
| Jun 5, 2013 at 15:02 | history | edited | Benjamin Dickman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Put question in main body to accord better with the one asked in the post title
|
| Jun 5, 2013 at 14:49 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | I have rewritten the post to isolate what I take to be the question, demarcating it from the lengthy ruminations which were off-putting to a number of readers. I think the question is interesting, and it would be good to re-open it. Plus, it would be nice to sort out the (maybe spurious) discrepancies between the two answers -- I am leaning towards Benjamin Dickman's as a positive candidate for an accepted answer. | |
| Jun 5, 2013 at 14:41 | history | edited | Todd Trimble | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
substantial edits in the intro to highlight the actual question
|
| Jun 5, 2013 at 6:47 | history | edited | Benjamin Dickman |
edited tags
|
|
| May 28, 2013 at 12:49 | comment | added | David E Speyer | Voted to reopen; I think this is an interesting and clear question, if a bit too verbose. I know of one good answer: The Lefschetz proof here mathoverflow.net/questions/10535/… . I also think a good answer to my question mathoverflow.net/questions/112306 would qualify as a solution to this, by flowing along the gradient of the Morse function from that question. | |
| May 28, 2013 at 8:00 | history | closed |
Robert Bryant Steven Landsburg Terry Tao Vidit Nanda Ramiro de la Vega |
not a real question | |
| May 28, 2013 at 7:11 | comment | added | Andrej Bauer | Too bad "tl;dr" is too short for a comment. | |
| May 28, 2013 at 5:50 | answer | added | Benjamin Dickman | timeline score: 17 | |
| May 27, 2013 at 18:48 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | I played around once with proving FTA from the Banach fixed point theorem but I couldn't get it to work. You can prove FTA from the Lefschetz fixed point theorem, though. Does that still qualify as "fixed point theory"? | |
| May 27, 2013 at 18:47 | comment | added | HJRW | I read the first three paragraphs and didn't find a question. If you browse the site, you'll see that most questions clearly indicate a concise, concrete, one-sentence question somewhere. | |
| May 27, 2013 at 18:47 | comment | added | Ryan Reich | Also, you can use TeX math in approximately the way you'd normally expect to. Please try it; it's more pleasant. | |
| May 27, 2013 at 18:33 | comment | added | Ryan Reich | The way you've written this question is "thinking out loud", which doesn't really lend itself to an answer. In a sense, you've given a partial answer yourself. Is it possible for you to summarize, in an organized way, the stuff you know, and then collect the actual question into a concise block at the end? Because it's going to get closed as written. | |
| May 27, 2013 at 18:29 | history | asked | David Bradway | CC BY-SA 3.0 |