Timeline for What problem in pure mathematics required solution techniques from the widest range of math sub-disciplines?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2017 at 23:29 | comment | added | Dan Piponi | "Every instance..." Surely that was the point of the question. | |
| Jun 12, 2017 at 17:22 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @DavidG.Stork let me also add that if I created impression of negative attitude, I regret it. The aim was rather to bring in some paradoxical aspects inherent in your question. Something like what happens in quantum mechanics where observing implies altering the state of the observed, which makes the observation obsolete, so that one needs some new non-classical approaches because of that. | |
| Jun 12, 2017 at 17:17 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @Wojowu I agree that definitely it is not an answer. On the other hand, it contains a conceptual viewpoint on the content of the question, so maybe it is not a comment either. Besides, this is cw anyway :D | |
| Jun 12, 2017 at 17:15 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @DavidG.Stork I honestly don't know how to formulate such question, although I must say your suggestions are very interesting for me. Seems like most mathematicians switch between two opposite regimes. Me myself I am like this - I can try to avoid other topics for years, when digging for an answer to some particular deep question. And then for years I might try to broaden my understanding, driven by strong feeling that the whole mathematics is one unified body of knowledge that we are challenged to grasp in total. The truth is more likely somewhere in between, as it usually happens... | |
| Jun 12, 2017 at 17:15 | comment | added | Wojowu | This should be a comment imo. That's not to say I disagree with you. | |
| Jun 12, 2017 at 17:08 | comment | added | David G. Stork | What, objective, then would you say is the difference between a result such as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (which relied nearly entirely on formal logic), and the Ramanujan conjecture by Deligne, noted above? How would you modify or edit the question to capture such differences and avoid it being "ill-posed"? What if the question restricted consideration to a single point in time, admitting that later the fields thought to be rather disparate were in fact closer than originally thought? What about a question forcusing on the greatest consolidation of fields previous thought disparate? | |
| Jun 12, 2017 at 10:42 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Jun 12, 2017 at 11:11 | |||||
| S Jun 12, 2017 at 10:24 | history | answered | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Jun 12, 2017 at 10:24 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by მამუკა ჯიბლაძე |