Timeline for Incorrect information in an old article about the Kervaire invariant
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 2:39 | comment | added | Jim Humphreys | There seems to be some confusion about the difference between "A. Milgram" and "R.J. Milgram". The latter used a version of his middle name "James" and was a prolific algebraic topologist at Stanford (now retired). | |
| Jan 13, 2020 at 9:41 | comment | added | Neil Strickland | @RobertBruner It would be great if you could add more details | |
| Jan 11, 2020 at 13:55 | vote | accept | Alex Gavrilov | ||
| Jan 10, 2020 at 17:19 | comment | added | Alex Gavrilov | Thank you. So this is where the mistake was. By the way, in the Remark I mentioned Mahowald have really said "it can be shown that $\theta_4^2=0$". And yes it can, except this was actually done 40+ years later! (Theorem 1.2 in this paper of Xu.) Amazing. I am still curious though why Shtan'ko counted the problem as solved in 1970s. Was there a time when experts were optimistic about it? | |
| Jan 10, 2020 at 16:31 | history | answered | Gjergji Zaimi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |