Timeline for What are some open problems in algebraic geometry?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
43 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2021 at 13:05 | history | edited | Stefan Kohl♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 19, 2017 at 4:25 | answer | added | Sam Hopkins | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jan 19, 2017 at 4:13 | answer | added | user19475 | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 7, 2016 at 22:21 | answer | added | tttbase | timeline score: 6 | |
| Feb 16, 2016 at 21:53 | history | edited | user9072 |
edited tags
|
|
| May 18, 2012 at 19:59 | comment | added | Jon Bannon | I like this question because AG is notoriously vast, so a question like this can educate the populace on the current state of things. | |
| May 18, 2012 at 19:44 | answer | added | Mahdi Majidi-Zolbanin | timeline score: 9 | |
| Nov 9, 2011 at 3:36 | answer | added | Carlos | timeline score: 19 | |
| Sep 1, 2010 at 5:52 | history | edited | Gil Kalai |
Changed the tag big-list to short-list
|
|
| Aug 31, 2010 at 12:12 | answer | added | mathphysicist | timeline score: 36 | |
| Aug 31, 2010 at 12:09 | history | edited | mathphysicist | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Aug 31, 2010 at 12:04 | comment | added | Emerton | Dear Davidac897, The algebro-geometric aspects of the Langlands program (at the current moment) primarily involve (a) studying the arithmetic geometry of Shimura varieties, and (b) as in Ngo's work, studying perverse sheaves on certain very special algebraic stacks. While both areas of investigation demand very sophisticated algebro-geometric tools, my view is that they are a somewhat specialized to be the answers to the general question of "what are big open problems in algebraic geometry", as opposed to "what are big open problems whose investigation may require algebraic geometry". | |
| Aug 31, 2010 at 9:33 | vote | accept | Sun | ||
| Aug 31, 2010 at 9:32 | vote | accept | Sun | ||
| Aug 31, 2010 at 9:32 | |||||
| Aug 31, 2010 at 9:32 | vote | accept | Sun | ||
| Aug 31, 2010 at 9:32 | |||||
| S Aug 31, 2010 at 9:32 | vote | accept | Sun | ||
| Aug 31, 2010 at 9:32 | |||||
| Aug 31, 2010 at 9:31 | vote | accept | Sun | ||
| S Aug 31, 2010 at 9:32 | |||||
| Aug 31, 2010 at 7:51 | history | edited | Sun | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 150 characters in body
|
| Aug 31, 2010 at 7:36 | vote | accept | Sun | ||
| Aug 31, 2010 at 9:31 | |||||
| Aug 31, 2010 at 7:33 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Kim Morrison | ||
| Aug 31, 2010 at 5:36 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | Dear Theo, no need to apologize. we can have different readings of the meta threads. | |
| Aug 31, 2010 at 4:32 | comment | added | David Corwin | Could Langlands be counted here, seeing as it uses an enormous amount of modern algebraic geometry, even though it seems to be more in number theory and representation theory? | |
| Aug 31, 2010 at 4:20 | history | edited | Ryan Budney | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
inappropriate title modified
|
| Aug 31, 2010 at 2:57 | comment | added | Theo Johnson-Freyd | @Gil Kalai: I might have misremembered or misread the meta discussions, and I apologize if I have mischaracterized the conclusions of those discussions. (Indeed, I have the impression that those discussions are ongoing.) If I have further thoughts on this question, I will bring them up on the meta discussion that Kevin Lin created. As it is, I have no major contributions. | |
| Aug 31, 2010 at 1:03 | answer | added | algori | timeline score: 35 | |
| Aug 31, 2010 at 0:57 | answer | added | Karl Schwede | timeline score: 17 | |
| Aug 31, 2010 at 0:45 | answer | added | Karl Schwede | timeline score: 14 | |
| Aug 30, 2010 at 23:36 | history | reopened |
Kevin H. Lin Gil Kalai John Stillwell algori Victor Protsak |
||
| Aug 30, 2010 at 22:34 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @algori - I guessed as much, but it seemed odd to name a broad area like "algebraic geometry" and then something more focused like "(algebraic) vector bundles". It would be very roughly like asking "what are the open problems in functional analysis and subnormal operators" | |
| Aug 30, 2010 at 22:20 | comment | added | algori | Yemon -- there are plenty of problems involving algebraic vector bundles. E.g. it is not known whether or not every complex vector bundle on a complex projective space is algebraic (it is strongly suspected that the answer is no, but to the best of my knowledge this hasn't been proven). Some of these problems are not as well known as they should be. Voting to reopen. | |
| Aug 30, 2010 at 21:48 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | As a non-geometer, I am puzzled by the "...and vector bundles" part. I would look on this question more favourably if more information or indication had been given as to what level the questioner is at. Just as if someone at a social occasion asks "what do you do and why is it important", knowing their motives or background helps me decide between "abstract math" and "homological properties of semigroup and Fourier algebras" as an answer | |
| Aug 30, 2010 at 21:41 | comment | added | Kevin H. Lin | Please discuss this question in this meta thread: tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/640/… | |
| Aug 30, 2010 at 21:39 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | Theo, this is not a correct characterization of the discussions on meta. This was an issue where there were different opinions. My opinion was that just like in "real world mathematics" (and science) attracting good answers is a merit of a question. The answers can give prople some clues for what to look for in the ICM talks and bulletin articles Mathew referred to. In fact, good answers can give useful links to specific such papers. In any case, I have voted to reopen. | |
| Aug 30, 2010 at 21:34 | comment | added | Kevin H. Lin | I agree that this question is a bit too broad. But otherwise I don't think it's a bad question. There's an analogous question that was posted at the CS theory SE site recently: cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/174/… | |
| Aug 30, 2010 at 18:41 | history | closed |
Akhil Mathew Ryan Budney Charles Siegel Harry Gindi Andrew Stacey |
off topic | |
| Aug 30, 2010 at 18:39 | history | edited | Theo Johnson-Freyd | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
fixed capitalization
|
| Aug 30, 2010 at 18:39 | comment | added | Theo Johnson-Freyd | We've had many discussions over at meta about whether a sufficient condition to be a good question is that it generates good answers. The overall consensus (that's too strong a word ... plurality opinion?) seems to be "no". If "too broad/vague" were a criterion on the list of reasons to close, I would vote to close. As of my comment, this question currently has four votes to close as "off topic", but it's certainly not that, it's just too vague. I do think it should be improved, though, and I will go in to fix capitalization. | |
| Aug 30, 2010 at 17:10 | answer | added | Henri | timeline score: 14 | |
| Aug 30, 2010 at 16:59 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | MO questions like the rest of us need luck. This question was lucky enough that Richard Borcherds offered a very nice answer and potentially there will be further answers that we can enjoy and ultimately this will be a useful source. Let's keep it open! | |
| Aug 30, 2010 at 15:52 | comment | added | Richard Borcherds | This seems a perfectly good question. I would be interested to see some of the answers. | |
| Aug 30, 2010 at 15:48 | answer | added | Richard Borcherds | timeline score: 41 | |
| Aug 30, 2010 at 15:31 | comment | added | Emerton | Why don't you read some of the literature on these topics to find out? Usually recent ICM talks, survey articles in the bulletin, and recently published advanced textbooks are good places to start for this kind of thing. | |
| Aug 30, 2010 at 15:27 | history | asked | Sun | CC BY-SA 2.5 |