Timeline for Relatively concise English expositions of the proofs of the various Weil conjectures
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
May 18, 2018 at 23:48 | answer | added | Evgeny Goncharov | timeline score: 5 | |
Apr 24, 2018 at 17:08 | answer | added | Evgeny Goncharov | timeline score: 4 | |
Sep 18, 2016 at 18:35 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
Sep 3, 2016 at 8:52 | answer | added | user19475 | timeline score: 3 | |
Aug 31, 2016 at 20:49 | answer | added | tttbase | timeline score: 5 | |
Aug 23, 2016 at 13:50 | answer | added | tttbase | timeline score: 5 | |
Aug 23, 2016 at 7:17 | answer | added | Steven Landsburg | timeline score: 14 | |
Aug 23, 2016 at 1:59 | answer | added | Daniel Hast | timeline score: 12 | |
Aug 23, 2016 at 0:26 | comment | added | Hoot | I take it that the book of Freitag-Kiehl has been dismissed? | |
Aug 23, 2016 at 0:09 | history | edited | user97565 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
Aug 23, 2016 at 0:02 | history | edited | user97565 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 19 characters in body
|
Aug 22, 2016 at 23:58 | comment | added | user97565 | @FelipeVoloch I'm perfectly fine with using étale cohomology as a black box. I've removed the "self-contained" stipulation from my original post. | |
Aug 22, 2016 at 23:35 | comment | added | Felipe Voloch | For 1. Koblitz's book p-adic Numbers, p-adic Analysis, and Zeta-Functions gives Dwork's proof in a fairly straightforward way. For 2-4, unless you are happy using etale cohomology as a black box, it inevitably takes a long time to develop. Maybe these days the proof using crystalline cohomology is shorter, but I doubt it. | |
Aug 22, 2016 at 23:10 | answer | added | Igor Rivin | timeline score: 14 | |
Aug 22, 2016 at 23:02 | review | First posts | |||
Aug 23, 2016 at 1:30 | |||||
Aug 22, 2016 at 22:54 | history | asked | user97565 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |