Timeline for Results that are widely accepted but no proof has appeared
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2021 at 22:34 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @R.vanDobbendeBruyn apart from being phrased in the dual setting, which is really a non-issue, I recall thinking that it's not clear that the definition of exit/entrance path category was quite the same. See the second dot-point on page 2. | |
| Mar 17, 2021 at 18:51 | comment | added | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | Besides the 2-categorical version of Treumann's thesis, isn't this worked out in detail in the 1-categorical case in section 6 of this paper of Curry and Patel? | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 5:21 | comment | added | Praphulla Koushik | "It's the complete lack of proof of MacPherson's theorem by anyone that is weird, here" Agreed... :) | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 5:19 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Yes. It happened the other way around, too. For example: Grothendieck asked Serre a question, the latter proved it, then Grothendieck published the theorem and proof. This is not that unusual. It's the complete lack of proof of MacPherson's theorem by anyone that is weird, here. | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 4:06 | comment | added | Praphulla Koushik | Ok. So, Grothendieck mentioned a theorem (with out proof) in a letter to Serre, what is now considered as a GRR theorem. Then, Serre and Borel ran a seminar to understand this, and published (Is it their own proof?) as “Le théorème de Riemann–Roch”.. Then, after some years Grothendieck published his first proof in the “book” SGA 6... Is it correct? | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 0:21 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Well, there's a number of famous examples. The Grothendieck–Riemann–Roch theorem, due to Grothendieck, appeared in a paper by Borel and Serre after being communicated in a letter. Grothendieck's proof was published about 14 years later, in SGA6. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… | |
| Apr 15, 2020 at 10:30 | comment | added | Praphulla Koushik | It is interesting how can some one cite a result more than once but there is no publication by the author where the result is mentioned... It must have been a very strong result :) :) | |
| Apr 15, 2020 at 10:24 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | It's cited a lot, the massively general versions arrived decades after the original. As in, it's a key technical tool in intersection homology IIRC. | |
| Apr 15, 2020 at 9:13 | comment | added | Praphulla Koushik | Is the theorem ofMacPherson used anywhere or only the general versions? | |
| S Apr 15, 2020 at 4:59 | history | answered | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 | |
| S Apr 15, 2020 at 4:59 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by David Roberts♦ |