Timeline for High dimensional generalized Poincare hypothesis without the h-cobordism theorem?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 18, 2013 at 0:39 | comment | added | Andy Putman | @RyanBudney : I look forward to seeing it! I always enjoy your papers. | |
| Dec 18, 2013 at 0:34 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | I'm starting to think maybe there's one does exist. I don't have a coherent argument, but when I put my next paper up on the arXiv you'll see some of my reasons why I have these hopes. | |
| Dec 18, 2013 at 0:24 | comment | added | Andy Putman | (which is not to say that I wouldn't be interested in a completely different proof of the PC; however, I kind of doubt that one exists) | |
| Dec 18, 2013 at 0:21 | comment | added | Andy Putman | @RyanBudney : I'd be impressed if you managed to give an engulfing-style proof of the h-cobordism theorem; the flavor of the handle manipulations in it are pretty different from those that show up in Smale's work. | |
| Dec 18, 2013 at 0:09 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | Hmm, I suppose I disagree with you. The h-cobordism theorem was just the natural setting for Smale's proof of the Poincare conjecture. It wasn't much more than a recasting of the argument into its "natural" form. And Stallings proof I lump in with the handle-by-handle type arguments such as the h-cobordism theorem. | |
| Dec 17, 2013 at 23:58 | history | answered | Andy Putman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |