Timeline for What are some examples of narrowly missed discoveries in the history of mathematics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 18, 2017 at 5:14 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 18, 2017 at 9:32 | |||||
| Sep 30, 2016 at 7:20 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | ... or perhaps it will show that nobody else was even close. Evidence: that was what happened with Deligne for the function field case. | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 1:04 | answer | added | Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 16:08 | comment | added | Sylvain JULIEN | The Riemann hypothesis, when it's solved, will probably show that several people nearly missed proving it. | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 13:52 | answer | added | Lennart Meier | timeline score: 10 | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 13:43 | answer | added | Gro-Tsen | timeline score: 7 | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 12:43 | history | edited | Gerry Myerson |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 21, 2010 at 16:01 | answer | added | Jon Paprocki | timeline score: 34 | |
| Jun 21, 2010 at 2:44 | answer | added | Daniel Moskovich | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jun 20, 2010 at 16:48 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | I've removed the "motivational" part of the question, since it doesn't seem particularly helpful or correspond with the answers already given. | |
| Jun 20, 2010 at 16:47 | history | edited | Victor Protsak | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
removed irrelevant "context"
|
| Jun 20, 2010 at 16:39 | answer | added | Victor Protsak | timeline score: 29 | |
| Jun 20, 2010 at 7:15 | answer | added | The Mathemagician | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 20, 2010 at 6:23 | answer | added | Ryan Budney | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jun 20, 2010 at 6:08 | answer | added | Péter Komjáth | timeline score: 12 | |
| Apr 4, 2010 at 6:32 | vote | accept | Shizhuo Zhang | ||
| Mar 26, 2010 at 2:49 | answer | added | Oliver | timeline score: 17 | |
| Mar 26, 2010 at 2:25 | answer | added | Jacques Carette | timeline score: 9 | |
| Mar 25, 2010 at 20:09 | answer | added | Mark Biggar | timeline score: 20 | |
| Mar 25, 2010 at 19:24 | comment | added | Theo Johnson-Freyd | With Ben's title change, I at least now understand what the question intends to ask. But the actual question in the text I still don't understand. Maybe since this is CW I should just change it, but I can't think of a way to make it a significantly better question. | |
| Mar 25, 2010 at 19:02 | answer | added | Simon Thomas | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 25, 2010 at 18:35 | answer | added | Ketil Tveiten | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 25, 2010 at 17:38 | answer | added | Harry Gindi | timeline score: 9 | |
| Mar 25, 2010 at 17:37 | answer | added | Qiaochu Yuan | timeline score: 36 | |
| Mar 25, 2010 at 17:27 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | Shizhuo- The original title of this post was so unhelpful, I went in and changed it myself (if you don't like what I chose, of course, you're free to change it to something else). When choosing a title, imagine yourself in the position of someone reading on the first page. If you read "Can you tell the similar phenomenon in the history of mathematics?" would you have any clue as to what the question was about other than something about the history of mathematics? | |
| Mar 25, 2010 at 17:24 | history | edited | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
edited title
|
| Mar 25, 2010 at 17:24 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Ben Webster♦ | ||
| Mar 25, 2010 at 4:19 | answer | added | John Stillwell | timeline score: 33 | |
| Mar 25, 2010 at 3:29 | history | asked | Shizhuo Zhang | CC BY-SA 2.5 |