Timeline for What is the definition of "canonical"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
33 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5, 2023 at 16:21 | history | edited | Milo Moses | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 38 characters in body
|
| Dec 16, 2020 at 0:51 | answer | added | Mitch | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 25, 2019 at 22:32 | answer | added | Fictional | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 7, 2019 at 22:33 | comment | added | Francois Ziegler | Blogging by @KevinBuzzard now complements his top-voted answer. | |
| May 31, 2019 at 18:22 | comment | added | user140765 | @FernandoMuro could you clarify? | |
| May 31, 2019 at 18:21 | comment | added | user140765 | @AllenKnutson the funny thing is that the canonical bundle (and its powers, positive or negative) are the only "functorially constructed" line bundles on a variety that have a chance to be ample (well, it is not a theorem, but this opinion was expressed to me by an expert in birational geometry). So in some sense there is not much to complain about. | |
| Jul 17, 2018 at 17:58 | comment | added | luysii | It's clear that there is no clear or single answer as to what canonical means | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 8:43 | comment | added | Fernando Muro | Software company. | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 6:35 | answer | added | Robin Adams | timeline score: 5 | |
| Aug 22, 2016 at 19:17 | comment | added | Hosein Rahnama | So according to the late edit, does canonical means invariant? :) | |
| Mar 22, 2014 at 16:57 | comment | added | Allen Knutson | I'm surprised that noone has complained about the term "canonical bundle" in algebraic geometry, meaning the top exterior power of the cotangent bundle. Let me do so here. | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 23:41 | history | edited | Ricardo Andrade | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed apparently irrelevant tag 'presentations-of-groups'; added tag 'big-list' (big list of examples); corrected a few typos
|
| Nov 13, 2013 at 23:17 | answer | added | Tim Campion | timeline score: 5 | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 15:25 | history | edited | Konrad Waldorf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 230 characters in body; edited title
|
| Feb 16, 2013 at 15:02 | answer | added | ACL | timeline score: 9 | |
| Feb 16, 2013 at 14:43 | answer | added | Matthieu Romagny | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 4, 2012 at 21:40 | answer | added | Patrick I-Z | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 4, 2012 at 20:28 | answer | added | David Corwin | timeline score: 12 | |
| Mar 29, 2010 at 13:07 | answer | added | Thomas Kragh | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 29, 2010 at 5:06 | answer | added | abcdxyz | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 29, 2010 at 2:33 | answer | added | Douglas S. Stones | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 22:03 | answer | added | Grant Olney Passmore | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 21:44 | answer | added | Fabrizio Polo | timeline score: 8 | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 20:58 | answer | added | Sergei Ivanov | timeline score: 14 | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 20:27 | answer | added | Kevin Buzzard | timeline score: 71 | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 19:36 | answer | added | François G. Dorais | timeline score: 51 | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 19:26 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | I think this question is a great example of how bringing in context can make a question less likely to be closed. Without the comment about the referee report, I probably would have thought the OP was being a wag, but in that context the question makes a lot of sense. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 19:07 | answer | added | Spencer | timeline score: 8 | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 18:52 | answer | added | Dmitri Pavlov | timeline score: 17 | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 18:43 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I think this question is fine, because: it admits answers where the respondent can bring external knowledge to bear; it is based on a particular point of interest and importance to practising mathematicians, esp. those in early stages of their careers; and there is some sense of consensus/tradition, so that something like a "right" or "wrong" answer could be attempted. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 18:36 | answer | added | Reid Barton | timeline score: 29 | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 18:35 | comment | added | Idoneal | Nice question but the math police will probably close it down. I don't think there is a canonical definition of 'canonical'. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 18:16 | history | asked | Konrad Waldorf | CC BY-SA 2.5 |