Timeline for What is a field [Körper] really?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 22, 2019 at 22:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 23, 2019 at 7:08 | |||||
| Aug 22, 2016 at 20:53 | answer | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 25, 2016 at 9:51 | comment | added | Neil Strickland | This question is relevant: mathoverflow.net/questions/3003 | |
| May 22, 2016 at 17:01 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | @BenjaminSteinberg That's true for the notion of "discrete field" as discussed in the nLab, ncatlab.org/nlab/show/field, but as it turns out that's a rather restrictive notion. (E.g., the Dedekind reals in a topos do not form a field in this sense.) A somewhat vexing issue is that constructively speaking, there is a variety of notions. | |
| May 20, 2016 at 21:51 | answer | added | Qiaochu Yuan | timeline score: 28 | |
| May 20, 2016 at 21:41 | comment | added | Benjamin Steinberg | The theory of fields fits into the context of coherent geometric logic in topos theory. | |
| May 20, 2016 at 19:59 | comment | added | Sylvain JULIEN | If I'm not mistaken, Grothendieck generalized Galois Theory in quite a broad way (not in the Big Apple though), so I'm not sure that a formalization of Galois theory is needed. Still, I think Marc Krasner (spelling?) did study an abstract Galois theory, I kind of remember having read a PDF entitled "Théorie de Galois abstraite" that could be of interest if you read French. | |
| May 20, 2016 at 19:46 | history | asked | Drew Armstrong | CC BY-SA 3.0 |