Timeline for What are examples of (collections of) papers which "close" a field?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 14 at 18:15 | comment | added | Arshak Aivazian | @AlexandreEremenko I'll look there, thanks! | |
| Jan 14 at 14:22 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @Arshak Aivazian: Probably this is written in his autobiography which was published in Uspekhi Mat nauk, 1978, vol. 33, 6, 7-21. But I am not 100% sure, and do not want to re-read this paper, so possibly it is in his some other paper, they are all available on Math.ru (in Russian). | |
| Jan 14 at 11:53 | comment | added | Arshak Aivazian | "according to Lev Pontryagin's own published recollections, he switched from topology to applied analysis in 1950s because the new abstract language introduced by the French revolutionized the area, and he could not stay in line with the modern development." Where exactly is this written? I found only a piece about the success of Leray’s formal approach, which was not comprehended by Potryagin, but I don’t see that he connected this with a change of field. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 20:14 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 595 characters in body
|
| Dec 4, 2019 at 18:43 | history | edited | Mad Physicist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
arguably improved grammar
|
| Dec 4, 2019 at 13:33 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @Darij Grinberg: I agree: "put to sleep" is a better description. | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 9:15 | comment | added | darij grinberg | My impression is that classical invariant theory has been put to sleep not by Hilbert's paper (which mainly proved qualitative results that weren't the priority of the British school) but by the unreadability and opaqueness of the British works. Hilbert's paper came out in 1890; the books of Weitzenböck and Turnbull in the 1920s. Would it really spend 30 years dying? My guess would be that it lost the competition for attention of young researchers against other parts of algebra that became much easier to learn due to better books (van der Waerden, later Bourbaki). | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 1:32 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Dec 4, 2019 at 1:01 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 366 characters in body
|
| Dec 4, 2019 at 0:52 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
minor typo
|
| Dec 4, 2019 at 0:50 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 274 characters in body
|
| Dec 4, 2019 at 0:45 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
minor typo
|
| Dec 4, 2019 at 0:30 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 144 characters in body
|
| Dec 3, 2019 at 20:32 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 246 characters in body
|
| Dec 3, 2019 at 20:27 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 246 characters in body
|
| Dec 3, 2019 at 20:26 | comment | added | darij grinberg | The mirror symmetry attack on cluster algebras? I feel like the field of cluster algebras has moved out of the algebraic combinatorics mainstream after that paper came out, although I see other reasons for that to happen too. | |
| S Dec 3, 2019 at 20:20 | history | answered | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 4.0 | |
| S Dec 3, 2019 at 20:20 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Alexandre Eremenko |