Timeline for Robotics, Cryptography, and Genetics applications of Grothendieck's work? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2016 at 6:55 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Dec 6, 2016 at 7:37 | |||||
| Nov 27, 2014 at 3:03 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Nov 27, 2014 at 16:31 | |||||
| Nov 22, 2014 at 14:33 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Nov 22, 2014 at 16:11 | |||||
| Nov 21, 2014 at 8:57 | history | edited | Douglas Zare | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Emphasized question. Deleted sentences about matrices. Added algebraic geometry tag even though some of Grothendieck's work was outside. Made trivial changes.
|
| Nov 20, 2014 at 13:03 | history | closed |
user9072 Yemon Choi Jeremy Rouse Ryan Budney Chris Godsil |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 23:34 | comment | added | user9072 | @RobertMastragostino with or without the quote I do not consider the question as suitable. If there were no quote I would complain that it is unmotivated. Would you consider the question "How does Laurent Schwartz's work help to build better aircrafts?" as a good one? [The name and the subject could be replaced in many ways; I chose something for definiteness.] [Added: and to avoid misunderstanding the point is that I think one could start to explain how distributions are important for the modern theory of PDEs and this is of use in building aircrafts and so on.] | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 23:24 | comment | added | Robert Mastragostino | I don't understand why this is considered off-topic. If someone asked the exact same question but without the quote from a reporter it would be a legitimate question, would it not? It's about professional mathematics, at least one source has been mentioned that does name inventions of Grothendieck, and it's clearly answerable, even if mostly in the negative. The question is not about what the reporter thought, the question is about whether they were right, which is a mathematical question with a mathematical answer. | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 22:53 | vote | accept | Tring Vu | ||
| Nov 19, 2014 at 19:24 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 20, 2014 at 13:03 | |||||
| Nov 19, 2014 at 19:13 | comment | added | user9072 | (cont.) Mr. Grothendieck proved two of the four hypotheses and developed a new proof of a third; his former student Pierre Deligne proved the fourth. Mr. Grothendieck and Mr. Deligne were not “working together.” " The quality of the excerpt in question now seems about the same. | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 19:12 | comment | added | user9072 | To expand on the semiautomatic comment above, it could make sense to pay attention to the very end of the obituary: "Correction: November 17, 2014 An earlier version of this obituary referred incorrectly in one instance to the influence of Mr. Grothendieck’s work. While it was a steppingstone to solving several arcane problems well known in mathematics, it was not a steppingstone to proof of the Poincaré conjecture. The obituary also described imprecisely Mr. Grothendieck’s contribution to proving a set of hypotheses posed by André Weil. (cont) | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 19:09 | comment | added | user9072 | This question appears to be off-topic because it is about some tangential remark in a non-mathematical text. | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 18:09 | answer | added | user3483902 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 17:20 | answer | added | john mangual | timeline score: 7 | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 11:53 | answer | added | Joseph O'Rourke | timeline score: 8 | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 10:36 | history | reopened |
Daniel Moskovich Douglas Zare Willie Wong Stefan Kohl♦ S. Carnahan♦ |
||
| Nov 19, 2014 at 7:11 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Nov 19, 2014 at 10:36 | |||||
| Nov 19, 2014 at 6:48 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | I do not think that MO is well-suited to speculation about what might or might not have been in the mind of a reporter for the New York Times. | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 6:38 | history | closed |
Will Jagy Andrés E. Caicedo Andy Putman Lucia Steven Landsburg |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 4:37 | comment | added | Jason Starr | Maybe this is referring to applications of "Grothendieck's Inequality". | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 4:22 | answer | added | Qiaochu Yuan | timeline score: 17 | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 3:37 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 19, 2014 at 6:40 | |||||
| Nov 19, 2014 at 3:36 | comment | added | Douglas Zare | Please do not hastily close this question. The use of matrices in robotics is not relevant (as far as I know), but people do study configuration spaces of linkages and other models of robots. I'm not qualified to talk about them, but some people consider a Grothendieck ring of configuration spaces. See Topological Robotics, and this section: books.google.com/… | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 3:35 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | The way I read it, it's a reference to the use of algebraic geometry in some aspects of robotics: see e.g. www-math.mit.edu/phase2/UJM/vol1/GRAYSO~2.PDF, and the book "Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms" if I recall correctly. This is of course a huge stretch - I have no idea if anything Grothendieck himself did was related to any of this - but I think this is what the passage is referring to. | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 3:28 | comment | added | Colin McLarty | It is fair to ask the question, since the NYT said this. But you are right to be skeptical. There are no major applications in these field though it would be foolhardy to say no one ever claimed to see connections. | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 3:21 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 19, 2014 at 3:34 | |||||
| Nov 19, 2014 at 3:16 | history | asked | Tring Vu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |