Timeline for Theorems with unexpected conclusions
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3, 2022 at 7:59 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Stefan Kohl♦ | ||
| Jun 12, 2022 at 9:25 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
replaced the dead link
|
| Apr 24, 2010 at 20:05 | comment | added | Junkie | See also Imin Chen. On Siegel's modular curve of level 5 and the class number one problem. Journal of Number Theory, v. 74, no. 2, 1999, 278--297. linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022314X98923204 Burcu Baran. Normalizers of non-split Cartan subgroups, modular curves and the class number one problem, (submitted). mat.uniroma2.it/~baran/classlast.pdf \bysame. A modular curve of level 9 and the class number one problem, Journal of Number Theory, vol. 129 (2009) 715-728 mat.uniroma2.it/~baran/baranarxiv1.pdf The ideas are all a lot the same. | |
| Mar 15, 2010 at 15:14 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | It was "Number Theory as Gadfly" (which I believe can be found at mathdl.maa.org/images/upload_library/22/Chauvenet/Mazur.pdf ). | |
| Mar 15, 2010 at 12:27 | comment | added | Thomas Riepe | Hi Qiaochu, which of the many "excellent article(s) by Barry Mazur" is it which you read? | |
| Mar 14, 2010 at 15:33 | comment | added | Anonymous | @Kevin: yes, I knew that and thanks for making it clear. I was just surprised to hear that Siegel had (as it turns out) another proof of the result. | |
| Mar 14, 2010 at 8:11 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | @Anonymous: the class number 1 result was proved independently of any statements about Fibonacci numbers by Baker, Stark and Heegner-Birch. | |
| Mar 14, 2010 at 6:01 | comment | added | Anonymous | Thanks. The papers listed in the answers to that question is the one I remember seeing. So this means that the Theorem above is a true theorem. | |
| Mar 14, 2010 at 5:58 | comment | added | Jonas Meyer | Anonymous, see mathoverflow.net/questions/1624/…. | |
| Mar 14, 2010 at 4:37 | comment | added | Anonymous | Is it true that the only Fibonacci numbers that are cubes are $0, \pm 1, \pm 8$? I seem to recall a recent paper proving this... | |
| Mar 14, 2010 at 2:16 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Whoops! I was reading a different excellent article by Barry Mazur today and got confused. | |
| Mar 14, 2010 at 1:18 | history | edited | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Mar 14, 2010 at 0:42 | history | edited | Noah Snyder | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
edited body
|
| Mar 14, 2010 at 0:02 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @QY: It is indeed an excellent article, one of my all-time favorites, in fact. But it is by Noam Elkies, not Barry Mazur. | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 23:49 | history | answered | Qiaochu Yuan | CC BY-SA 2.5 |