Timeline for Some clarifications on Connes' approach to RH
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2018 at 20:47 | comment | added | user87684 | One also appreciates the fact that Deninger humbly and carefully refrains from selling such intuitions as a "program", or anything of the sort, and it rather seems to me his work is explicitly designed and presented to only raise awareness. Still, it cannot really be "progress" insofar there's, to this day, no evident connection to global class field theory (or number theory at all). It deserves to be taken as a genuinely interesting perspective, quite opposite to invoking "characteristic one" black magic, which is usually only a synonym of "we don't really know what to do" | |
| May 30, 2018 at 20:42 | comment | added | user87684 | @MikhailKatz To my mind, C. Deninger's intuition that some appropriate class of "foliated solenoids" equipped with compatible flows, and their "foliated de Rham-Betti cohomology", might play a key role into the picture, is suggestive and far-reaching. It may well be that, in some appropriate precise sense, this will indeed turn out to be the case. One can trace motivation in support of this, spread all over non-obviously-related areas of mathematics (complex, real, $p$-adic Hodge theories, some aspects in Riemannian geometry and ergodic theory, analytic and algebraic number theory, et al.). | |
| May 30, 2018 at 9:41 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | Just curious: how does Christopher Deninger's approach to RH fare by your criterion? See e.g., this. | |
| May 30, 2018 at 3:48 | comment | added | user92332 | Fantastic answer! | |
| May 30, 2018 at 3:47 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Jun 4, 2018 at 15:47 | |||||
| May 30, 2018 at 3:07 | history | edited | user87684 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 87 characters in body
|
| May 30, 2018 at 3:00 | history | answered | user87684 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |