Timeline for What is... a grossone?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
84 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Dec 6, 2022 at 13:04 | history | notice added | Asaf Karagila♦ | Historical significance | |
| S Dec 6, 2022 at 13:04 | history | locked | Asaf Karagila♦ | ||
| Dec 5, 2022 at 11:01 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @AlecRhea, your flagging is predicated on your assumption that grossone is "pseudomathematics" (and I am certainly on record as agreeing with you), but two popular answers (by Lolli and Moskovich) argue otherwise (Moskovich even claims that grossone was "well received"). Furthermore, many MO questions have had accepted answers for years and remain open. | |
| Dec 4, 2022 at 21:05 | history | edited | YCor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
removed capitals from title
|
| Dec 4, 2022 at 19:49 | comment | added | Alec Rhea | I have flagged this post for moderator intervention; as someone who uses MO for genuine mathematical research, seeing what is essentially a blog post about pseudomathematics forced to the front page by repeated unsubstantial edits , when it has had an accepted answer for 8 years, I think it is time for the mods to lock this post to ‘protect it’ from further edits. | |
| Dec 4, 2022 at 17:54 | history | reopened |
Carlo Beenakker Alex M. Paul Taylor Misha Verbitsky Dattier |
||
| Dec 4, 2022 at 17:05 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | meanwhile the gift of Grossone keeps on giving: theinfinitycomputer.com/for-investors or pehaps you'd like a conference on it to attend? No problem: theinfinitycomputer.com/conferences | |
| Dec 4, 2022 at 16:45 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarified the question at issue
|
| Dec 3, 2022 at 17:40 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Dec 4, 2022 at 17:57 | |||||
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:27 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Aug 3, 2018 at 8:05 | history | closed |
Nik Weaver Michael Greinecker Anton Fetisov Peter Humphries Moritz Firsching |
Opinion-based | |
| Aug 1, 2018 at 19:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 3, 2018 at 8:05 | |||||
| Aug 1, 2018 at 18:26 | comment | added | Daniel Moskovich | I think this whole question is much better for a Wikipedia page. I don't think it's anywhere near over, especially as Sergeev probably doesn't disagree with the content of any of what has been said (with the tone yes, but not with the content), as he is not claiming a result in mathematical logic as far as I can see. There is nothing in what anyone has said here to prevent people (e.g. computer scientists) from using Grossone if they find it a simpler term to use, is there? "It's not even wrong- it's imprecise" Katz says; and Sergeev, I think, agrees, but sees this as a feature not a bug. | |
| Aug 1, 2018 at 18:14 | history | reopened |
Mikhail Katz darij grinberg Fedor Petrov Dima Pasechnik Daniel Moskovich |
||
| Jul 31, 2018 at 15:18 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | In this case, I suggest to open the question and ask Mikhail not to keep updating his question (or answer) with new information because people would like to see it "coming to rest". New information can be added via comments. @MikhailKatz ? | |
| Jul 31, 2018 at 15:14 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | @Gil: No, all edits bump. If I recall correctly, even edits of deleted answers on non deleted questions. | |
| Jul 31, 2018 at 15:09 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | @AsafKaragila (or anybody else). Is it the case that once closed new edits do not bump up the question to the front page? | |
| Jul 30, 2018 at 21:08 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | @Gil: I suspect the reason so many people are annoyed (judging by the +9 and +11 votes on the closure related comments means that at least 12 people are pro-closure) is that this thread is already two and a half years old. Letting the subject to rest is probably a good thing. And yes, you also have a few long-running threads, but those are about collecting valuable resources, problems, etc. and not—like this one—which is about someone else's being awful at their job (and again we go back to the now-deleted thread and the related meta discussion). | |
| Jul 30, 2018 at 16:23 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | As far as I can see the new edit was made 8 months after a previous edit on January. Why was it so annoying? Still if people dont like to see updates here on the topic of the question wouldnt it be reasonable to make new updates by comments that do not pop up the question? | |
| Jul 30, 2018 at 13:06 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2192 characters in body
|
| Jul 30, 2018 at 12:35 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jul 30, 2018 at 14:05 | |||||
| Jul 30, 2018 at 12:23 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jul 30, 2018 at 11:54 | history | closed |
Yemon Choi user6976 Francois Ziegler KConrad Todd Trimble |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Jul 30, 2018 at 11:30 | comment | added | KConrad | I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because the continued editing of the question with "notes" that brings it back to high visibility is getting tiresome. Seeing this question appear yet again is just annoying at this point. It is time to end the updates once and for all. | |
| Jul 30, 2018 at 0:21 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | As I understand it, a running commentary like this is not really what MO is for. (Also at this point it honestly feels a bit like gloating.) | |
| Jul 29, 2018 at 18:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 30, 2018 at 11:55 | |||||
| Jul 29, 2018 at 17:53 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I'm voting to close this question for the reasons laid out in my earlier comment. It is long past time that this whole answer was moved over to someone's blog. MO should not be used by a user (or group of users) as some kind of bulletin board, purely because of its apparent reach and SEO status | |
| Jul 29, 2018 at 14:54 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | The reviews now linked in the question were not available earlier. | |
| Jul 29, 2018 at 14:53 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | Does this really need continued updating? I'm not sure what these additional edits are trying to accomplish, other than to remind people of the question. | |
| Jul 29, 2018 at 13:35 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 363 characters in body
|
| Jun 22, 2018 at 10:40 | comment | added | J.J. Green | Re note 8, the linked website (seemingly from 2013) is now operational. | |
| Jan 2, 2018 at 10:24 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | I don't see how what started out as a "genuine question" as you put it, suddenly ceased being one just because I added an update that's surely of interest to editors who visited this question (over 5000 visits), namely the fact that both Editors-in-Chief of a respected journal resigned over the mistake of publishing a paper by Sergeyev. @YemonChoi | |
| Jan 2, 2018 at 9:41 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
refreshing stale link
|
| Dec 28, 2017 at 15:13 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 28, 2017 at 16:24 | |||||
| Dec 28, 2017 at 13:00 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Mikhail, the original post may have been a genuine question, but at this point you seem to be using MO as a place to do your own commentary and blogging on this grossone mess. Would it not be more appropriate for you to blog about this, and then replace the majority of your "question" with links to your blog? | |
| Dec 28, 2017 at 8:37 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 192 characters in body
|
| Dec 20, 2017 at 17:12 | comment | added | Stopple | Posting on the Retraction Watch blog: retractionwatch.com/2017/12/19/… | |
| Dec 16, 2017 at 19:40 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Both editors-in-chief resigned
|
| Nov 5, 2017 at 12:12 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 128 characters in body
|
| Mar 18, 2016 at 8:39 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 206 characters in body
|
| Feb 1, 2016 at 14:51 | history | protected | Todd Trimble | ||
| Feb 1, 2016 at 9:21 | answer | added | Semen Kutateladze | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jan 31, 2016 at 14:01 | answer | added | Mikhail Katz | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jan 18, 2016 at 14:59 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 19, 2016 at 4:55 | |||||
| Jan 18, 2016 at 14:55 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 9 characters in body
|
| Jan 18, 2016 at 14:25 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Jan 5, 2016 at 13:38 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 228 characters in body
|
| Jan 4, 2016 at 7:46 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 160 characters in body
|
| Jan 3, 2016 at 9:16 | answer | added | Vladimir Kanovei | timeline score: 10 | |
| Dec 31, 2015 at 16:38 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 31, 2015 at 8:20 | answer | added | Mikhail Katz | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 10:32 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| Dec 28, 2015 at 14:57 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 411 characters in body
|
| S Dec 28, 2015 at 11:19 | history | bounty ended | Mikhail Katz | ||
| S Dec 28, 2015 at 11:19 | history | notice removed | Mikhail Katz | ||
| Dec 24, 2015 at 11:37 | answer | added | Gabriele Lolli | timeline score: 22 | |
| Dec 24, 2015 at 8:44 | answer | added | Daniel Moskovich | timeline score: 8 | |
| Dec 23, 2015 at 22:45 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Welcome to MathOverflow, Alexandre! I believe that we recently spoke in Cambridge. You can edit your user profile to use your real name, so that it will show up properly in your posts. | |
| Dec 23, 2015 at 22:35 | comment | added | user97019 | I apologise, I did not put my name under my comment: Alexandre Borovik | |
| Dec 23, 2015 at 22:32 | comment | added | user97019 | Many years ago, when I was an undergraduate student, I had a desk (and an unlimited access to a decent library) at what is now known as the Sobolev Institute of Mathematics (my university had close connections with it), and it had so happened it was my informal duty to write answers to letters with proofs of the Fermat Last Theorem and stuff like that were steadily coming to the Institute. Inventions of various systems of "supernumbers" were a prominent thread. In Sergeyev's case, I experience déjà vu all over again. | |
| Dec 23, 2015 at 14:34 | vote | accept | Mikhail Katz | ||
| Dec 23, 2015 at 7:51 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 452 characters in body
|
| Dec 22, 2015 at 19:05 | comment | added | Daniel Moskovich | @katz it's explained in the second link, 7/8 of the way down, in the remark by Charles Stewart dated Wed, 2010-02-03 12:53 | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 17:59 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @DanielMoskovich, I am not sure what you are referring to exactly. I checked the link you provided but there does not seem to be any mention of grossone there. | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 19:48 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Dec 21, 2015 at 19:08 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 240 characters in body
|
| Dec 21, 2015 at 16:06 | comment | added | JMP | @katz; i got it, i was thinking with all these $\infty$'s, each should have it's own zero, i.e. lots of zeroes! | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 16:04 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @Jon, let me give you an answer in the context of a Levi-Civita field which is a well-defined mathematical object. Here you have a basic infinite number, say $x$ (think of the asymptotic behavior of the function $f(x)=x$ as $x$ tends to infinity). You can construct other infinities, for example, by taking powers of $x$. They will all have inverses that are infinitesimal, i.e., infinitely close to $1$ (in the sense of being smaller than each positive real constant). | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 16:02 | comment | added | JMP | i was wondering how many infinities there are, and do they all inversely tend to zero? but interesting paper. | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 16:00 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @Jon, the grossone seems to be a fixed quantity to the extent that it can be described as a quantity at all. The problem is that Sergeyev's theory does not take place in any mathematical framework I am familiar with, so it is hard to be sure. At any rate it does not seem to "tend" anywhere but rather be a fixed infinite quantity. Then 1/grossone would be a fixed infinitesimal. Perhaps it can be said that it is infinitely close to zero... | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 15:54 | comment | added | JMP | does $1/\operatorname{grossone}\to0$? | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 12:20 | comment | added | Daniel Moskovich | Maybe this MO question is relevant: mathoverflow.net/questions/13029/… The OP of that question suggests that Grossone numbers "rational exponential expressions" closed under subtraction: lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3716 | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 10:03 | answer | added | Andrej Bauer | timeline score: 54 | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 9:10 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1618 characters in body; edited tags
|
| S Dec 20, 2015 at 17:43 | history | bounty started | Mikhail Katz | ||
| S Dec 20, 2015 at 17:43 | history | notice added | Mikhail Katz | Draw attention | |
| Dec 20, 2015 at 17:01 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 20, 2015 at 16:39 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 497 characters in body
|
| Dec 18, 2015 at 23:23 | answer | added | Louis H. Kauffman | timeline score: 36 | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 8:57 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 134 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 13:08 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
responding to Kauffman article
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 8:02 | answer | added | none | timeline score: 13 | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 7:47 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 49 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Dec 16, 2015 at 17:25 | history | asked | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |