Timeline for Experimental mathematics leading to major advances
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22, 2022 at 15:56 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http -> https (the question was bumped anyway)
|
| Jan 30, 2021 at 7:42 | comment | added | Bruno | I had that a computer-aided proof that there does not exist any more tiling has been given by Rao, see arxiv.org/abs/1708.00274. | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 0:01 | comment | added | Dan Romik | @Gerry Myerson: furthermore, the boundary between "normal" and "experimental" math is becoming increasingly blurry, and the distinction between experimental and "rigorous" is becoming increasingly unhelpful. E.g., computer experimentation has played a key role in most of my papers. None of these are "experimental math" papers--they all have formal theorems with human-readable proofs. But the work that led me to these theorems was largely experimental. My point is that much of normal math research is "experimental." Certainly when you do a computer search, you are doing experimental math. | |
| Aug 30, 2015 at 23:41 | comment | added | Dan Romik | @Gerry Myerson: Yes. | |
| Aug 30, 2015 at 23:24 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Does every computer search qualify as "experimental math"? | |
| Aug 30, 2015 at 23:18 | review | Late answers | |||
| Aug 30, 2015 at 23:41 | |||||
| S Aug 30, 2015 at 23:03 | history | answered | Dan Romik | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Aug 30, 2015 at 23:03 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Dan Romik |