Timeline for Special cases of Dirichlet's theorem
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 0:51 | answer | added | Jeff Strom | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 29, 2016 at 14:07 | history | edited | David Feldman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jul 20, 2010 at 18:29 | vote | accept | falagar | ||
| Jul 20, 2010 at 18:09 | comment | added | José Hdz. Stgo. | mathoverflow.net/questions/28160/… | |
| Jul 20, 2010 at 17:40 | answer | added | Robin Chapman | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jul 20, 2010 at 13:31 | answer | added | Daniel Litt | timeline score: 22 | |
| Jul 20, 2010 at 13:22 | comment | added | Wadim Zudilin | Isn't $2\cdot3=6$ classical analysis? :-) And you use much more complicated products... | |
| Jul 20, 2010 at 13:19 | comment | added | Wadim Zudilin | Modulo 6 the argument works, as well as for $1\pmod8$. | |
| Jul 20, 2010 at 13:06 | comment | added | falagar | Actually I want proof that is niether of two mentioned in the question. By "a simple non-analytic proof" I mean a proof that doesn't use any of classical analysis. | |
| Jul 20, 2010 at 12:45 | comment | added | Wadim Zudilin | Please explain what do you mean by "a simple non-analytic proof". If one of the two mentioned above, then $m$ should involve only 2s and 3s in its prime factorisation. | |
| Jul 20, 2010 at 12:40 | comment | added | Wadim Zudilin | I also had a related question mathoverflow.net/questions/25956. | |
| Jul 20, 2010 at 12:19 | comment | added | Nurdin Takenov | Here is the similar question - mathoverflow.net/questions/16735/… | |
| Jul 20, 2010 at 12:16 | comment | added | François G. Dorais | This question of mine and the answer by Bjorn Poonen deals with many special cases - mathoverflow.net/questions/15220/… | |
| Jul 20, 2010 at 12:14 | history | asked | falagar | CC BY-SA 2.5 |