Timeline for What's Reeb's take on naive integers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 2017 at 17:14 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 106 characters in body
|
| Mar 2, 2016 at 10:21 | comment | added | user9072 | Thanks for the offer. One cannot transfer files via chat. But I am not an expert anyway, so I can easily wait for the "official" release of your work (on website, preprint server, journal). | |
| Mar 2, 2016 at 10:17 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @quid, we are writing a related article. If you are interested I can send you a copy if this sort of thing can be done via chat (I have never done it before). | |
| Mar 2, 2016 at 10:16 | comment | added | user9072 | This seems plausible. Some proceedings of seminars were published in this series. | |
| Mar 2, 2016 at 9:35 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @quid, I read both texts and they are quite different. The first is perhaps a record of a talk at Strasbourg? | |
| S Feb 29, 2016 at 10:18 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Feb 29, 2016 at 10:18 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Feb 22, 2016 at 0:19 | comment | added | user9072 | It is tangential but from the bibliographic data the first version looks like a preprint version of the latter. | |
| Feb 21, 2016 at 22:09 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fomatting, accents improved
|
| Feb 21, 2016 at 14:27 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 230 characters in body
|
| Feb 21, 2016 at 9:47 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
| Feb 21, 2016 at 9:45 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @PeterLeFanuLumsdaine, Reeb's texts are written in rather difficult French. Even though I feel myself competent in French (and have taught math in French for many years), these texts are open to interpretation and are not purely mathematical ones. You could perhaps say that they are meta-mathematical in the best sense of the word. And he certainly does not claim that Bourbaki made his "claim Q". | |
| Feb 21, 2016 at 9:45 | comment | added | Vladimir Kanovei | It is not out of question that `an MO answerer' reads Reeb from different angle and hence is able to fruitfully answer the topicstarter questions. | |
| Feb 21, 2016 at 9:37 | comment | added | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine | From your last sentence, you seem to have two actual questions here: (1) “is it really true that there is no Nelson-style justification in Reeb?” and (2) “what ultimately is Reeb’s own argument?” Of these, (1) seems a clear and in principle answerable question, perfectly appropriate. But (2) seems open-ended to the point of unanswerability: if you have read Reeb’s papers and don’t feel they give a clear answer, then how can an MO answerer know what will satisfy you? I suggest it would be helpful to either remove or clarify (2). | |
| Feb 21, 2016 at 9:23 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 217 characters in body
|
| Feb 21, 2016 at 9:17 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 217 characters in body
|
| S Feb 21, 2016 at 9:14 | history | bounty started | Mikhail Katz | ||
| S Feb 21, 2016 at 9:14 | history | notice added | Mikhail Katz | Draw attention | |
| Feb 19, 2016 at 13:02 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 19, 2016 at 14:23 | |||||
| Feb 19, 2016 at 9:20 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 19, 2016 at 9:12 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 19, 2016 at 9:06 | history | asked | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |