Timeline for Preparing for Set Theory Research
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 29, 2021 at 20:54 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Stefan Kohl♦ | ||
| Feb 13, 2019 at 5:20 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 16, 2019 at 9:48 | |||||
| Oct 13, 2017 at 2:58 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 13, 2017 at 9:02 | |||||
| Jun 27, 2013 at 17:10 | history | reopened |
Benjamin Steinberg Timothy Chow Joseph O'Rourke Andrey Rekalo Joel David Hamkins |
||
| Jun 27, 2013 at 17:06 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | Meta. | |
| Jun 27, 2013 at 4:15 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | There's a false premise behind the question, which is that the way to prepare to do research is to read a book. Reading is part of it, but what you really need is to develop a feeling for what problems are (1) unsolved, (2) important, and (3) tractable. It's very hard to develop this feeling on your own (though a few exceptional people can do it). Reading a book is certainly not sufficient. Conversely, it is not necessary either; for any particular problem you end up solving, much of Jech will probably be irrelevant. That said, if you don't have an advisor right now, reading Jech can't hurt. | |
| Jun 26, 2013 at 0:05 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jun 26, 2013 at 12:27 | |||||
| Jun 25, 2013 at 23:32 | history | closed |
Andy Putman Angelo Will Jagy Andrés E. Caicedo Harry Gindi user6976 |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 21:25 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Well, an answer of "no" could be a fine answer as well! But I don't think it's entirely clear cut, just on general principle. One can imagine a very clever undergraduate reading, say, Diestel's Graph Theory, and then solving thesis-worthy problems in graph theory through some general knowledge of what has been done and by dint of sheer cleverness -- this type of thing does happen. In other words, I think it really depends on the type of mathematics -- and this is where informed professionals such as Joel can provide valuable and nuanced advice. | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 21:19 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 25, 2013 at 23:35 | |||||
| Jun 25, 2013 at 21:03 | comment | added | Andy Putman | @JoelDavidHamkins : Well, first it strikes me as extremely naive. The obvious answer is "no" -- there is no branch of mathematics in which the reading of a single book is sufficient to prepare you for independent research. And I think that questions like "what do I need to read to do research in subject X" (which is broader than the question here) are too unfocused. | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 20:55 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Andy, could you explain why not? Perhaps it should be CW? I think that it is a question that could easily be asked by a graduate student at math tea, and it can only be sensibly answered by someone with lots of familiarity with the text and with what it takes to undertake research in set theory. | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 20:52 | comment | added | François G. Dorais | I've never heard of anyone being hurt by reading too much, too fast, but I wouldn't be shocked if the surgeon general required a label warning against that on the back of Jech's Set Theory... | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 20:35 | comment | added | Andy Putman | I stand by the substance of my comment, but I apologize for its tone. In any case, I really don't think this is an appropriate question for MO. | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 20:27 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | While I'm ambivalent about the question, I think @AndyPutman's 1st comment is a bit sweeping. Initial guidance is important, but so is independent curiosity/initiative. | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 20:25 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | I don't think the question is appropriate for MO, but anyway: No, of course Jech's book is not enough. Jech's text is just introductory. An excellent introduction, for sure, but an introduction nonetheless. | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 20:24 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 20:23 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | @AndyPutnam: yes, but I don't plan on arguing the point with anyone (you in particular). I'll concede that your point makes some sense to me; it's a judgment call IMO. | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 20:19 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 25, 2013 at 23:40 | |||||
| Jun 25, 2013 at 20:19 | comment | added | Joseph Van Name | Some universities don't have anyone good who works in set theory and related areas, so the situation may be more complicated than simply asking an advisor even if the OP is a graduate student. | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 20:17 | comment | added | Andy Putman | @ToddTrimble : Do you really think that this is a reasonable question for MO? | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 20:15 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | It sounds likely that OP hasn't yet approached a potential thesis advisor (or hasn't yet been accepted as a student of such), in fact might be an undergraduate, and just wants an idea if Jech will bring up him/her to speed with cutting-edge problems. I think that's more or less a reasonable thing to ask. | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 20:14 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 25, 2013 at 21:36 | |||||
| Jun 25, 2013 at 20:10 | history | edited | The User |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 25, 2013 at 20:04 | comment | added | Andy Putman | The best (only?) way to prepare oneself for research is to to enroll in a graduate program and follow the advice of your advisor. In any case, this question is off-topic for MO and I have voted to close. | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 19:58 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | The best way to get ready for research is to read other people's research papers in the subfield where you'd like to do your work. | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 19:56 | history | asked | Law | CC BY-SA 3.0 |