Timeline for Do you know important theorems that remain unknown?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
46 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 29, 2023 at 12:19 | answer | added | Hexhist | timeline score: 7 | |
| Sep 22, 2022 at 5:25 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Related (but not identical): mathoverflow.net/questions/66075/… | |
| Dec 31, 2020 at 22:49 | comment | added | Wlod AA | One could say "... unknown or forgotten". | |
| Dec 31, 2020 at 0:45 | answer | added | Anton Petrunin | timeline score: 41 | |
| Feb 19, 2020 at 13:47 | history | protected | Piotr Hajlasz | ||
| Feb 26, 2019 at 15:17 | history | edited | Piotr Hajlasz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 96 characters in body
|
| S Feb 26, 2019 at 15:17 | history | bounty ended | Piotr Hajlasz | ||
| S Feb 26, 2019 at 15:17 | history | notice removed | Piotr Hajlasz | ||
| Feb 22, 2019 at 22:11 | answer | added | Abdelmalek Abdesselam | timeline score: 13 | |
| Feb 19, 2019 at 19:52 | history | edited | Piotr Hajlasz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 80 characters in body
|
| S Feb 18, 2019 at 22:31 | history | bounty started | Piotr Hajlasz | ||
| S Feb 18, 2019 at 22:31 | history | notice added | Piotr Hajlasz | Draw attention | |
| Jan 25, 2019 at 15:00 | history | edited | Piotr Hajlasz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 176 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2018 at 8:14 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
added (soft-question) and (big-list) - if you think some of the two tags is not a good fit, feel free to rmeove it
|
|
| Apr 5, 2018 at 19:03 | comment | added | Yly | +1 This question has become probably the most informative question I've seen on any stackexchange site, ever. | |
| Apr 5, 2018 at 18:01 | history | edited | Piotr Hajlasz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 91 characters in body
|
| Apr 4, 2018 at 21:17 | answer | added | Malik Younsi | timeline score: 24 | |
| Apr 3, 2018 at 22:22 | comment | added | Piotr Hajlasz | @YCor "Provide references to the original paper" I just wanted to make suggestions about how to write an answer of high quality. I have seen too many posts with vague statements and no references. I wanted to write a clear and concise guideline. Listing all possible exceptions would make my statement long and opaque. I am sure that is someone knows a good, but unpublished result, they will not hesitate to list it here. | |
| Apr 3, 2018 at 14:51 | comment | added | YCor | "Provide references to the original paper": it's not explicit before in the question that these should have been published. This somewhat narrows the question; there have certainly been results that were known to some community but were not published, and some may have been forgotten, sometimes rediscovered. (I don't mean that narrowing the question in this way is bad -reference to unpublished work would make things even more speculative-, but I just mention this.) | |
| Apr 3, 2018 at 10:56 | answer | added | Damiano Mazza | timeline score: 32 | |
| Apr 3, 2018 at 0:53 | comment | added | Suvrit | isn't this question unanswerable --- the moment an answer appears on MO, the theorem is no longer "unknown" :-) | |
| Apr 2, 2018 at 21:12 | answer | added | Piotr Hajlasz | timeline score: 36 | |
| Apr 2, 2018 at 19:00 | answer | added | Daniele Tampieri | timeline score: 43 | |
| Apr 1, 2018 at 16:51 | comment | added | YCor | @PeterLeFanuLumsdaine thanks very much: indeed I didn't notice that the change was done by another user and not by the OP. | |
| Apr 1, 2018 at 16:17 | history | rollback | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine |
Rollback to Revision 3
|
|
| Apr 1, 2018 at 10:28 | comment | added | YCor | The new question ("What important theorems were less well known before 2018?", replacing "Do you know important theorems that remain unknown?") is far too broad. First, an upper bound on the original year would be a good safeguard. I preferred the "unknown" although not so well-defined (I proposed "widely unknown"). "Less well-known" is as much subjective, and more open-ended. At least the previous formulation was explicitly subjective. In addition, this title will be completely obsolete after 2018, while this question will most likely still reappear in the front list. | |
| Apr 1, 2018 at 7:11 | history | edited | zylstra | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Acknowledged the fact that this question may make some theorems more popular.
|
| Mar 30, 2018 at 13:17 | comment | added | YCor | @PiotrHajlasz A paper can remain quite unknown even if published in a famous journal. I'm aware of several papers published in major journals with a number of citations close to zero, and mathscinet random browsing yields many examples. | |
| Mar 30, 2018 at 13:16 | comment | added | YCor | @DavidRicherby mathematics evolve and there are fashions; so it can occur that some study/result that looks of marginal interest at some date (because it's not fashionable, too original, or even because it's not well spread by its author) appears as important later. | |
| Mar 29, 2018 at 19:43 | answer | added | coudy | timeline score: 168 | |
| Mar 29, 2018 at 17:37 | comment | added | Piotr Hajlasz | @DavidRicherby Liu and van Rooij solved a problem posed by Hormander (see my post). This was the only missing case in the result of Hormander. The result of Hormander is in nearly every textbook in harmonic analysis. However, the result of Liu and Van Rooij remains unknown. A result can be important and unknown if it is published in a minor journal. That was the case. | |
| Mar 29, 2018 at 17:22 | comment | added | David Richerby | I'm confused about how a theorem can be both important and unknown. If (almost) nobody, even including specialists in its area, knows of the theorem, what can it have achieved that is important? About the only example I can think of is a theorem that shows that some once-popular approach to an important problem couldn't work, which inspired somebody to come up with a new approach that worked or was otherwise fruitful. | |
| Mar 29, 2018 at 13:36 | answer | added | Tomasz Kania | timeline score: 62 | |
| Mar 28, 2018 at 15:27 | comment | added | Piotr Hajlasz | I am not sure. Most of the results are "widely unknown" because they are known only to specialists in the area. For example one can say that the Hurewicz theorem mod Serre class C is "widely unknown" because it is not a basic result in a standard algebraic topology curriculum. But what I had in mind are the results that are also unknown to the specialists in the area. | |
| Mar 28, 2018 at 12:07 | comment | added | YCor | I'd say "widely unknown". "Virtually" sounds senseless here when used in its common meaning. | |
| Mar 28, 2018 at 7:20 | comment | added | Najib Idrissi | @IgorBelegradek The number of humans is finite, so aren't all theorems virtually unknown? :) | |
| Mar 27, 2018 at 22:08 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 28, 2018 at 20:43 | |||||
| Mar 27, 2018 at 20:56 | comment | added | Igor Belegradek | In the title it is probably better to replace "unknown" by "virtually unknown". | |
| Mar 27, 2018 at 19:25 | answer | added | Alexandre Eremenko | timeline score: 57 | |
| Mar 27, 2018 at 19:12 | history | edited | Piotr Hajlasz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 11 characters in body; edited title
|
| Mar 27, 2018 at 19:00 | comment | added | YCor | Related (although distinct): mathoverflow.net/questions/176425/… | |
| Mar 27, 2018 at 17:54 | history | edited | Maya | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
remove spurious linebreak
|
| Mar 27, 2018 at 16:02 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Mar 27, 2018 at 14:29 | answer | added | Piotr Hajlasz | timeline score: 55 | |
| S Mar 27, 2018 at 14:26 | answer | added | Piotr Hajlasz | timeline score: 70 | |
| S Mar 27, 2018 at 14:26 | history | asked | Piotr Hajlasz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |