Timeline for L'un des problèmes fondamentaux de la théorie des nombres
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 25, 2018 at 17:38 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
In-lined Tony's translation from https://mathoverflow.net/questions/41296/lun-des-problèmes-fondamentaux-de-la-théorie-des-nombres#comment97392_41296
|
| Oct 17, 2010 at 11:47 | answer | added | Thomas Riepe | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 7, 2010 at 4:29 | vote | accept | Chandan Singh Dalawat | ||
| Oct 6, 2010 at 19:20 | answer | added | Emerton | timeline score: 13 | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 18:27 | comment | added | Tony Scholl | @Pete: "The search for an interpretation for $C_k$, where $k$ is a number field - in some way analogous to its interpretation by a Galois group when $k$ is a function field - seems to me to be one of the fundamental problems of number theory today; perhaps such an interpretation contains the key to the Riemann hypothesis..." | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 18:12 | answer | added | Tony Scholl | timeline score: 13 | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 18:01 | comment | added | BCnrd | It would be more fun if the non-commutative people could say something about the Weil group $W_k$ of a number field, rather than its (topological) abelianization $C_k$. :) | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 17:43 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | Could we get a translation of Weil's quote? (I myself do mostly understand it and could give some kind of translation, but many others would do a better job.) | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 16:52 | history | edited | Chandan Singh Dalawat | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Oct 6, 2010 at 16:45 | history | asked | Chandan Singh Dalawat | CC BY-SA 2.5 |