Timeline for who fixed the topology on ideles?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 18, 2019 at 1:31 | comment | added | WhatsUp | Ahh... so sad to see this answer now. His only answer/post on MO... | |
| Jul 2, 2011 at 3:49 | vote | accept | KConrad | ||
| Oct 8, 2010 at 17:30 | comment | added | Unknown | MO has become much more research-level, more of a gallery, and I am counting down as to whom is to join next. | |
| Oct 7, 2010 at 6:53 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | @John Tate: in your thesis you shift the emphasis so that local compactness is crucial (i.e. so that the abstract Fourier analysis all works), and once you realise this then the topology you want is almost jumping out of the page! | |
| Oct 7, 2010 at 0:30 | comment | added | JS Milne | Yes, I think the answer is Weil. In his short 1936 paper "Remarques sur des resultats recent de C. Chevalley" he complains about Chevalley's topology, and writes down other constructions and topologies (and mentions Grossencharacters) but doesn't write down anything immediately recognizable (to me) as the ideles. In his 1951 paper (J. Math. Soc. Japan) he defines without comment the ideles with the natural (modern) topology. That is also where he wrote "La recherche d'une interpretation pour C_k ... me semble constituer l'un des problemes fondamentaux..." See also his Commentaries in his CW. | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 22:56 | comment | added | Keenan Kidwell | Yay! I have no need for further characters. | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 21:10 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | Welcome aboard! | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 21:05 | history | answered | John Tate | CC BY-SA 2.5 |