Timeline for What are examples of mathematical concepts named after the wrong people? (Stigler's law)
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2022 at 11:54 | history | edited | Pierre-Yves Gaillard | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed broken link
|
| Aug 14, 2022 at 7:52 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | The link iecn.u-nancy.fr/~gaillard/vogan_ref.pdf seems to be dead - and I found it neither on the new site nor in the Wayback Machine. (But since the bibliographic data and the link to the journal version are given, this probably doesn't really matter.) | |
| Aug 14, 2022 at 7:50 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 216 characters in body
|
| Aug 12, 2022 at 19:03 | history | edited | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
2 broken links fixed, cf. https://meta.mathoverflow.net/q/5301/70594
|
| Aug 8, 2010 at 6:49 | comment | added | Pierre-Yves Gaillard | Dear Victor. Thanks again. I feel we all agree that "Kazhdan-Lusztig conjecture" is Conjecture 1.5 of the Inventiones paper [KL] (I'm designated the papers as in the answer). I think we also agree that, when KL were writing [KL], they knew that Conj. 3.15 of [I] implied their Conj. 1.5. [There is, in this story, a lot of math I don't understand. I'm just trying to make a very limited factual point.] | |
| Aug 8, 2010 at 6:34 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | As Jim has said, there are several related conjectures here, with Jantzen's conjecture the strongest in the complex group case ($\iff$ the Verma module case) and Vogan's conjecture the most general (real reductive group); however, "Kazhdan-Lusztig conjecture" unambiguously refers to the statement that $[M_w:L_y]=P_{w_0y,w_0w}(1),$ and KL were the first to relate the multiplicities to Hecke algebra, although Joseph had been working in that direction and Goresky and MacPherson's work on intersection cohomology served as a motivation for defining KL polynomials. PS: CW --> no notification? | |
| Aug 8, 2010 at 1:56 | comment | added | Pierre-Yves Gaillard | Here is what I believe. What people call the "KL Conjecture" is Conj. 1.5 of [KL] (the Invent. paper). In [II] (the 2nd Duke "Irred. Char." paper of Vogan), this conjecture is stated as Conj. 3.3; the conjecture of [I] (the 1st "Irred. Char." paper) is labeled Conjecture 2.5; and it is proved (Theorem 3.5) that Conj. 2.5 implies Conj. 1.5 of [KL]. Thanks for correcting me if I'm wrong. | |
| Aug 7, 2010 at 21:10 | comment | added | Jim Humphreys | I think this is mostly a labelling question, since what most people have referred to over the years as the Kazhdan-Lusztig Conjecture (soon proved geometrically by Beilinson-Bernstein, Brylinski-Kashiwara) concerns multiplicities in Verma modules. What Vogan developed was in a sense "equivalent" but not the same statement in spite of his modest label. The KL formulation has had natural analogues in other kinds of representation theory. And Jantzen's older conjecture on Verma module filtrations was later seen to imply it, but the formulations are quite different. | |
| Aug 7, 2010 at 19:49 | comment | added | Pierre-Yves Gaillard | Dear Victor, dear Jim: Thank you very much for your comments. I'll try to explain how I view things in an edit (soon to come) to my answer, and you'll tell me why I'm wrong. In a nutshell, I'm referring to what Vogan did before, and not after, the Inventiones KL paper. Things are very clearly explained in the very first two paragraphs of projecteuclid.org/… Also I made this claim several times in presence of David Vogan, and he never objected. (I'm sure you know his honesty and modesty.) | |
| Aug 7, 2010 at 18:59 | history | edited | Pierre-Yves Gaillard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
corrected spelling
|
| Aug 7, 2010 at 18:51 | history | edited | Pierre-Yves Gaillard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
corrected a web link
|
| Aug 7, 2010 at 18:43 | history | edited | Pierre-Yves Gaillard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
EDIT clearly indicated
|
| Aug 7, 2010 at 18:10 | comment | added | Pierre-Yves Gaillard | Dear Victor, I've just discovered your comment! Usually I get an automated alert whenever somebody comments in one of my answers. I could almost swear I didn't get any for your comment. Next time, don't hesitate to email me! (My address is very easy to find, for instance on my MO page.) | |
| Aug 7, 2010 at 16:00 | comment | added | Jim Humphreys | The answer is incorrect, since the KL 1979 paper (Invent. Math.) was the first to state the KL Conjecture based on Hecke algebras and KL polynomials. Kazhdan and Lusztig were motivated by questions about singularities of Schubert varieties, Springer's representations of Weyl groups, Jantzen's work on Verma modules, etc. Vogan was approaching similar machinery from the direction of real Lie group representations, which led him after the KL paper to complete parts of his own program using "KLV polynomials". See Steven Kleiman's history of intersection homology (arXiv) for the role of GM. | |
| Jun 28, 2010 at 15:24 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | I never heard that! (Although the names of Goresky and MacPherson are sometimes mentioned). What is the source? | |
| May 21, 2010 at 4:42 | history | answered | Pierre-Yves Gaillard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |