Timeline for How hard is it to get tenure in mathematics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 15, 2011 at 12:28 | comment | added | Marc Palm | Weil's Basic Number Theory starts with this theorem... | |
| Oct 27, 2010 at 6:17 | comment | added | dvitek | Theodore J. Kaczynski, "Another proof of Wedderburn's theorem". American Mathematical Monthly 71 (1964) 652-653. (I know it's not a link, but it's good enough...) | |
| Oct 27, 2010 at 1:37 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | A link to the paper? | |
| May 7, 2010 at 13:10 | comment | added | GS | Though apparently I was wrong about the method of proof: it has nothing to do with geometry as far as I can see. | |
| May 6, 2010 at 22:00 | comment | added | Andy Putman | That's great! I found the paper, and it's actually pretty nice! I've always wanted to read a paper by the unabomber... | |
| May 6, 2010 at 17:29 | comment | added | GS | IIRC, UnaB gave a proof too (relying on the geometry of proj. space over a finite division ring?) | |
| May 6, 2010 at 17:27 | comment | added | Andy Putman | @Stephen : Huh? Is this a joke I'm too dull to get? The only three people I know of who gave proofs that every finite division ring is commutative were Wedderburn, Dickson, and Witt. All were mainstream academic mathematicians. | |
| May 6, 2010 at 17:22 | comment | added | GS | Yes, but perhaps many of those PhDs never intended to work as researchers in academia? Like, if you prove that every finite division ring is commutative but have secret misanthropic ambitions the whole time. | |
| May 6, 2010 at 17:12 | history | answered | Gerald Edgar | CC BY-SA 2.5 |