Timeline for Where to publish a new proof of an old theorem?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 16, 2021 at 20:22 | comment | added | Stanley Yao Xiao | There is also Gowers getting the Fields Medal for a new proof of Szemeredi's Theorem. Furstenberg got the Abel Prize in large part due to his proof of Szemerdi's theorem using ergodic methods. Szemerdi himself, of course, got the Abel Prize for his theorem (which by then was long overdue) | |
| Feb 12, 2017 at 12:22 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Feb 11, 2017 at 21:57 | comment | added | Lucia | You can look at Bohr's citation here mathunion.org/ICM/ICM1950.1/ICM1950.1.ocr.pdf . It mentions prominently the work on sieves, the work on zeros of zeta, and of course also the elementary proof of the prime number theorem. There is no doubt that the elementary proof was rated highly --- my point is just that saying Selberg got the Fields medal for the elementary proof is going too far. | |
| Feb 11, 2017 at 15:07 | comment | added | Lucia | I think that's just not correct. I think Bohr who gave the citation (which I can't find) would not have thought of it this way. | |
| Feb 11, 2017 at 7:58 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @Lucia: There is no doubt that Selberg had other important results. But I suspect that the elementary proof of the Prime number theorem played a crucial role in this award. | |
| Feb 10, 2017 at 23:08 | comment | added | Lucia | It's not quite correct to describe Selberg's Fields Medal in this way. There was also at that time his substantial work on zeros of zeta and L-functions, and his development of sieve methods. | |
| Feb 10, 2017 at 22:27 | comment | added | M.Lopes | Thank you, Alexandre Eremenko. No, it doesn't give any new insight, that's why I wondered in the first place if it was worth publishing it. Then, I thought: why not? It's still interesting at least as a curiosity. | |
| Feb 10, 2017 at 20:19 | comment | added | Dave L Renfro | +1 for the prime number theorem example. As I was reading over the question and the other answers, I had this vague memory of an alternate proof of something that wound up being very famous, and then I realized what it was when I saw your answer. | |
| Feb 10, 2017 at 19:33 | history | answered | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 3.0 |