Timeline for Is there an "elementary" proof of the infinitude of completely split primes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Mar 12, 2019 at 16:32 | history | suggested | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
formatting
|
| Mar 12, 2019 at 16:19 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 12, 2019 at 16:32 | |||||
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Jun 22, 2013 at 20:23 | answer | added | Albertas | timeline score: 11 | |
| Feb 14, 2010 at 14:16 | comment | added | JS Milne | Yes, this is the easy way round. The hard way is showing algebraically that, given an (abelian) extension L/K of number fields, there exists a prime of K that does not split completely in L. This was done by Chevalley when he gave the first purely algebraic proof of the main theorems of class field theory. | |
| Feb 14, 2010 at 12:33 | answer | added | Franz Lemmermeyer | timeline score: 14 | |
| Feb 14, 2010 at 2:30 | comment | added | François G. Dorais | Seeing how simple the answers from Bjorn and Victor are, this is one case where the "obvious" analytic proof is much, much longer than the elementary one! | |
| Feb 14, 2010 at 2:13 | vote | accept | François G. Dorais | ||
| Feb 14, 2010 at 1:50 | answer | added | Victor Miller | timeline score: 12 | |
| Feb 14, 2010 at 1:49 | answer | added | Bjorn Poonen | timeline score: 77 | |
| Feb 14, 2010 at 0:40 | history | asked | François G. Dorais | CC BY-SA 2.5 |