Timeline for Was Cauchy prescient?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
72 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 30, 2018 at 11:47 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Jul 21, 2018 at 10:14 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 25, 2018 at 20:14 | |||||
| Dec 10, 2017 at 10:45 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 256 characters in body
|
| Sep 17, 2017 at 3:02 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 18, 2017 at 7:34 | |||||
| Sep 12, 2017 at 6:42 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @GerryMyerson, in my last edit, I undid an inappropriate edit by another editor. So you must be referring to 28 edits. A majority of those were in response to minute objections to the wording of earlier versions of the question. | |
| Sep 11, 2017 at 21:51 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Thirty edits. A record? | |
| Sep 11, 2017 at 12:47 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
This is a broader question that includes the sum theorem as well
|
| Sep 8, 2017 at 13:14 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 8, 2017 at 17:38 | |||||
| Sep 8, 2017 at 12:48 | history | edited | Qfwfq | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Sep 8, 2017 at 7:33 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 17 characters in body
|
| Jun 29, 2017 at 8:16 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Jun 12, 2017 at 8:26 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 52 characters in body
|
| Jun 12, 2017 at 1:57 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | @NikWeaver Thanks -- I really appreciate your telling me that. | |
| Jun 11, 2017 at 21:43 | comment | added | Nik Weaver | @ToddTrimble: I'd just like to thank you for your fair and thoughtful treatment of all parties, here and elsewhere. | |
| Jun 11, 2017 at 16:19 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 114 characters in body
|
| May 10, 2017 at 18:27 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | @Lucia Thanks. I've also considered that possibility (and still am). | |
| May 10, 2017 at 18:26 | comment | added | Lucia | @ToddTrimble: Here's a suggestion: I think this question should be community wiki. Based on OPs comments to the answers, and also since the question raises a point of history rather than plain math, it is unclear to me that there will be a definitive answer to the question. | |
| May 10, 2017 at 18:16 | history | edited | Todd Trimble | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
ameliorated some text; added a direct link; tried to clarify the question
|
| May 10, 2017 at 13:35 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | (Some of the recent comments have been edited by me, including this one, because after some others were voluntarily removed, they lost some of their prior context.) I may move this discussion to chat because of all the heat it's generated. Everyone: if you must comment, please do your damnedest to make it as constructive as possible. I'm not sure the question can be made to work, but I do want to give it a fair shot, so please enter constructive suggestions on how it can be improved. I'm listening. | |
| May 10, 2017 at 12:35 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @MikhailKatz I voted as "off-topic", because the actual question "Are we to accept them at face value? Is there more to the story than meets the eye?" is not what MO is made for. Indeed, I don't think your question does count as a question. I believe it is a thinly veiled attempt to advertise your own position on the issue. I have no problem with your position, but MO is not a blog; it is a question and answer site. | |
| May 10, 2017 at 11:31 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @MikhailKatz I believe it is possible and would be better to provide answers relating to substantive mathematical issues on the question I linked. As a matter of fact, you posted an answer there. Why is there a need for a new question? | |
| May 10, 2017 at 9:15 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz |
edited tags
|
|
| May 10, 2017 at 8:59 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
sp
|
| May 10, 2017 at 7:27 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 909 characters in body
|
| May 8, 2017 at 14:17 | answer | added | Joël | timeline score: 20 | |
| May 8, 2017 at 13:39 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Gentlemen: let's please refrain from further ad hominem. The question of bounties shall be strictly between the author and the site moderators. I will now delete the preceding two comments: now that their authors have gotten feelings off their chests, they seem no longer worthwhile to keep around. Let us now focus solely on the question's content; meta concerns should go to MO meta. | |
| May 8, 2017 at 13:27 | answer | added | Mikhail Katz | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 7, 2017 at 13:19 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 57 characters in body
|
| May 3, 2017 at 16:30 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 122 characters in body
|
| May 3, 2017 at 16:24 | history | reopened |
Carlo Beenakker Tim Perutz Leo Alonso Gro-Tsen Francois Ziegler |
||
| May 3, 2017 at 15:58 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
moving note to *comment* upon suggestion of fellow editor
|
| May 3, 2017 at 15:22 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz |
edited tags
|
|
| May 3, 2017 at 13:27 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 122 characters in body
|
| May 3, 2017 at 13:17 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 16 characters in body
|
| May 3, 2017 at 13:00 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
changed title as per suggestion by fellow editor
|
| May 3, 2017 at 12:16 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| May 3, 2017 at 13:07 | |||||
| May 2, 2017 at 22:28 | history | closed |
András Bátkai David White Stefan Kohl♦ Suvrit Michael Greinecker |
Not suitable for this site | |
| May 1, 2017 at 0:10 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | @Suvrit Please see meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19756/how-do-comments-work "Comments are temporary "Post-It" notes left on a question or answer. You should not expect them to be around forever: Once a clarification has been made, an edit added to the post to include new information, or the issue in the comment is otherwise resolved, it is subject to deletion." This certainly applies to the present case, and besides the comments were getting heated. I thought it well to start again afresh. If you have further constructive suggestions, please enter them. | |
| Apr 30, 2017 at 23:58 | comment | added | Suvrit | @ToddTrimble It seems unfair to have deleted the comments that added a bit of context and useful suggestions (especially because one can click on what has been edited, and look back at the question as it evolved; seeing what types of comments, and reactions make a question evolve in a particular way is an interesting, possibly instructive component of MO). | |
| Apr 30, 2017 at 17:23 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 8 characters in body
|
| Apr 30, 2017 at 17:20 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | I have deleted a fair number of comments that refer to earlier formulations of the question but are now obsolete. Some of those asked for the OP to disclose the existence of a recent preprint he co-authored which is relevant to this question, which he has done. I have left Lee Mosher's comments which aver that the question could still be improved, and MK's response. | |
| Apr 30, 2017 at 16:42 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 478 characters in body
|
| Apr 30, 2017 at 16:32 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 30, 2017 at 19:48 | |||||
| Apr 30, 2017 at 16:12 | history | notice removed | François G. Dorais | ||
| Apr 30, 2017 at 16:01 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @LeeMosher, I don't mean to invite "discussion" per se, but I can't believe that I already know all there is to be known about these situations, and am asking for more information. Such inquiries are necessary if one is to avoid living in a too-self-referential world possibly accidentally disconnected from a larger world. "Mere" conscientiousness is sometimes not enough, because one may fail to imagine what one doesn't know. | |
| Apr 30, 2017 at 15:14 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 25 characters in body
|
| Apr 30, 2017 at 15:09 | history | notice added | Mikhail Katz | Improve details | |
| Apr 30, 2017 at 15:01 | comment | added | Lee Mosher | ...You do seem to already know a lot, and without knowing the content of your papers one would be wary of expressing thoughts regarding material which you already understand, particularly because of the high risk of inviting casual expressions of your contempt. | |
| Apr 30, 2017 at 15:00 | comment | added | Lee Mosher | For suggestions on how to "rethink the formulation", it is quite like any mathematical question: your question is too broad and it lacks context, which are commonly accepted reasons to close questions on this site. Also, questions whose main purpose is to advertise one’s own work are commonly closed on this site. If, on the other hand, you have specific doubts left over from your own work, say, particular historical gaps you are interested in plugging, explaining what you know and highlighting the things you wish to know would improve your question... | |
| Apr 30, 2017 at 14:45 | history | reopened |
Mikhail Katz user21574 Paul Taylor Gil Kalai paul garrett |
||
| Apr 30, 2017 at 13:22 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Apr 30, 2017 at 14:29 | |||||
| Apr 30, 2017 at 13:02 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 52 characters in body
|
| Apr 30, 2017 at 12:37 | history | closed |
Stopple user44143 Gerald Edgar Andy Putman Jeremy Rickard |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Apr 29, 2017 at 23:47 | history | notice removed | François G. Dorais | ||
| Apr 27, 2017 at 16:06 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 181 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2017 at 15:30 | answer | added | Carlo Beenakker | timeline score: 20 | |
| Apr 27, 2017 at 15:13 | history | notice added | Mikhail Katz | Draw attention | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 7:08 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 39 characters in body
|
| Apr 25, 2017 at 16:37 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
| Apr 25, 2017 at 16:27 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Apr 25, 2017 at 16:26 | comment | added | Frieder Ladisch | According to ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Cauchy+sum+theorem, the last section on Lakatos's view, Cauchy was aware of problems. I'm a layman, but I think there is "more than meets the eye" here. Link to Lakatos's paper: dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03023263 | |
| Apr 25, 2017 at 16:25 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Apr 25, 2017 at 16:14 | comment | added | user78249 | @MikhailKatz Yes, that's what I meant. Can't remember where I read it, or if I got in a discussion with a professor over this. Different mathematicians used different definitions, and they all just called it 'convergence.' | |
| Apr 25, 2017 at 16:11 | comment | added | paul garrett | ... and, yes, as @james.nixon suggests. | |
| Apr 25, 2017 at 16:11 | comment | added | paul garrett | Seems strange to me that this is getting "close" votes... I'm not a historian, but I do recall and still see the hard-line belief system that everyone was benighted before Weierstrass' delta-epsilon stuff, ... despite A. Robinson et al. My superficial revisiting of Cauchy's "famous error" also makes it less clear that he didn't understand what was going on. E.g., conceivably he meant uniform pointwise convergence, but did not have an established language to say this clearly. So this seems to me a reasonable question. | |
| Apr 25, 2017 at 16:09 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @james.nixon, you mean Cauchy assumes uniform convergence? | |
| Apr 25, 2017 at 16:06 | comment | added | user78249 | Just to be clear, you're talking about the fiasco surrounding "uniform convergence vs. pointwise convergence"? If so, I will make a note, can't remember where I read it, but I read Cauchy actually proves uniform convergence, but simply called it convergence. (The distinction was muddy at the time, as everyone just thought there was convergence, not types of convergence.) I could be wrong though. So him being pigheaded, could just be a semantic problem more than anything. | |
| Apr 25, 2017 at 15:59 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
sp
|
| Apr 25, 2017 at 15:42 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 25, 2017 at 20:26 | |||||
| Apr 25, 2017 at 15:40 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 77 characters in body
|
| Apr 25, 2017 at 15:26 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Apr 25, 2017 at 15:13 | history | asked | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |