Timeline for Algebraic geometry used "externally" (in problems without obvious algebraic structure).
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
22 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sep 2, 2010 at 11:13 | answer | added | Lennart Meier | timeline score: 3 | |
Jul 26, 2010 at 20:40 | answer | added | Anweshi | timeline score: 4 | |
Jul 16, 2010 at 12:17 | history | edited | Andrey Rekalo |
Tag added
|
|
Jun 28, 2010 at 13:39 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | I didn't realize upon reading the FAQ that everyone was under an obligation to convince Andrew that her/his question is vital for her/his research! Mercifully, this fearsome rule is rarely enforced in practice. | |
Jun 26, 2010 at 1:33 | answer | added | Ian Agol | timeline score: 4 | |
Jun 25, 2010 at 18:07 | answer | added | Ben Green | timeline score: 2 | |
Jun 25, 2010 at 9:27 | comment | added | Andrew Stacey | The "How To Ask" page has a whole section on the value of providing "Background and motivation". I agree that my objection applies also to the "Math for dinner" question (to which I object even more strongly than this one) but I would way "equally relevant" rather than "much more relevant". I voted to close that question as well. | |
Jun 25, 2010 at 8:37 | answer | added | Terry Tao | timeline score: 9 | |
Jun 24, 2010 at 16:46 | comment | added | BCnrd | @Martin: please read the first 5 words of my previous comment (and look again at the conditions in the question, especially the first one). | |
Jun 24, 2010 at 16:26 | answer | added | Bob Terrell | timeline score: 4 | |
Jun 24, 2010 at 11:18 | comment | added | Boyarsky | @Andrew: your objection seems much more relevant to the question about "Math for dinner". | |
Jun 24, 2010 at 9:15 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | @BCnrd: Again I have to ask: Why don't you post this as an answer? | |
Jun 24, 2010 at 9:13 | answer | added | Martin Brandenburg | timeline score: 17 | |
Jun 24, 2010 at 5:43 | comment | added | T.. | @BC: thanks. @Andrew: the FAQ, HowToAsk and material they link to don't mention any extra need for a "big-list" question to explain the asker's individual interest in the subject. Indeed, doing so would (or could) be extramathematical or needlessly personal, though it can add value sometimes. IMO it is enough that the math in a question, considered on its own, seems likely to interest people enough to gain answers or upvotes. The latter have occurred 4 and 7 times respectively within nine hours, so apparently the question was interesting enough without personal details on research etc. | |
Jun 23, 2010 at 22:36 | answer | added | Allen Knutson | timeline score: 3 | |
Jun 23, 2010 at 22:16 | answer | added | Allen Knutson | timeline score: 21 | |
Jun 23, 2010 at 21:00 | comment | added | BCnrd | Not sure if this counts: if $\Gamma$ is any group and $(V_i, \rho_i)$ are two finite-dimensional semisimple linear representations of $\Gamma$ in characteristic 0, then $\rho_1 \otimes \rho_2$ is semisimple. The only known proof for general $\Gamma$ (according to Serre) is by introducing algebraic geometry via Zariski closures of each $\rho_i(\Gamma)$ in ${\rm{GL}}(V_i)$: prove they're reductive (perhaps disconnected!), and apply facts about linear algebraic groups to reduce the problem to its easy analogues for semisimple Lie algebras and finite groups. Serre is very fond of this argument. | |
Jun 23, 2010 at 20:54 | comment | added | Andrew Stacey | Any question that asks for a "big list" should also explain carefully how it's going to help you in your research. Are you trying to learn algebraic geometry and looking for motivation? Are you going to teach algebraic geometry and looking for examples? Why are you asking this question? | |
Jun 23, 2010 at 20:46 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by CFZ | ||
Jun 23, 2010 at 19:53 | answer | added | Daniel Litt | timeline score: 3 | |
Jun 23, 2010 at 19:49 | answer | added | Andrey Rekalo | timeline score: 11 | |
Jun 23, 2010 at 19:43 | history | asked | CFZ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |