Timeline for What is the most useful non-existing object of your field?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 29, 2014 at 23:54 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Yemon, thanks for your understanding. I'm removing my first comment and I'm voting up. | |
| Sep 29, 2014 at 20:50 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @TimothyChow I suspect I must have noticed your answer there and echoed it in my phrasing :) Actually, I think the phenomenon you refer to is a different idea from the one I had in mind: yours seems to be discreteness; mine is the tension between small and large | |
| Sep 29, 2014 at 20:07 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | +1 I was going to post this myself (or rather an integer between 0 and 1) if you hadn't beaten me to it. See my answer to this MO question: mathoverflow.net/questions/129364/… | |
| Sep 29, 2014 at 17:46 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @Dirk ah, well I tend to use "you can't be both small and big" more than "you can't have two different signs at once" | |
| Sep 29, 2014 at 17:40 | comment | added | Dirk | I use the non-existence of a number that is both positive and negative much more often then the non-existence of a number that is less than and greater than $1$. However, the non-existence of a number that is both positive and negative follows easily: Let $x$ fulfill i) $x<1$ and ii) $x>1$. Then for $y = x-1$ we have by i) that $y<0$ and by ii) that $y>0$ and hence, $y$ has the desired properties. Since $x$ does not exist, $y$ also does not exist either. | |
| Sep 29, 2014 at 17:17 | history | edited | Yemon Choi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
A sensible edit, which I'm just tidying since I prefer to choose my own phrasing (no wiki worship here)
|
| Sep 29, 2014 at 15:23 | history | edited | Spike0xff | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
incorporated Yemon's elaborating comment.
|
| Sep 29, 2014 at 2:06 | comment | added | Toby Bartels | Well, I'm voting it up. It's a good answer! And although context always helps, I've done enough analysis that I recognized it right away. | |
| Sep 28, 2014 at 23:15 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Yemon, your follow-up definitely improves your answer. Answers should provide some context, rather than being baldly obviously nonexistent items. | |
| Sep 28, 2014 at 23:11 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | @NAME_IN_CAPS Yes, very true; I like that response because it describes the thought in context. | |
| Sep 28, 2014 at 23:09 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I should perhaps explain that behind my frivolous phrasing is a serious point: see the argument just before the statement of Corollary 4.9 in arxiv.org/abs/0801.3415 , or Lemma 3.6 in arxiv.org/abs/0811.4432 , or Lemma 3.2 in arxiv.org/abs/0906.2253 | |
| Sep 28, 2014 at 23:07 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Sep 28, 2014 at 23:22 | |||||
| Sep 28, 2014 at 23:04 | comment | added | NAME_IN_CAPS | Integers (strictly) between 0 and 1 form the basis of transcendental number theory. | |
| S Sep 28, 2014 at 22:48 | history | answered | Yemon Choi | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Sep 28, 2014 at 22:48 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Yemon Choi |