Timeline for Stories where a different definition lead to an inaccurate conclusion/a misunderstanding/etc
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20 at 17:18 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 25 at 3:02 | |||||
| Jan 8, 2022 at 0:01 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Tim Campion | ||
| Jan 7, 2022 at 21:57 | comment | added | John McVey | I was telling a coworker of mine, who works primarily with algebraic number fields, how it took me quite awhile to adjust to using the phrase ``ideal of the algebraic number field." He had the "I don't get it" look plastered across his face until I reminded him that fields only have two ideals and that what we were referencing were actually ideals of the ring of integers within the algebraic number field. | |
| Jan 7, 2022 at 20:04 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | [Ever since the term “infra-nilmanifold endomorphism” arose in the 1960s, there has been confusion about its exact meaning, and different authors have used the term to refer to different concepts. Partly because of this confusion, two major results in dynamical systems, one on Anosov diffeomorphisms (1974) and one on expanding maps (1981), turn out to be incorrect.] - from "What is... an Infra-nilmanifold Endomorphism?" by Karel Dekimpe ams.org/journals/notices/201105/rtx110500688p.pdf | |
| Jan 7, 2022 at 20:02 | history | edited | John McVey | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jan 7, 2022 at 18:26 | comment | added | John McVey | You reminded me I was at a talk where I was asking a question about Aut(G) (which is the automorphism group of G), but the speaker kept hearing "odd G" instead of "aut G." | |
| Jan 7, 2022 at 18:00 | comment | added | LSpice | I also attended a Lie-groups talk wherein the speaker and an audience member had a prolonged debate about certain properties of a group that was resolved only when a third party observed that the audience member meant the exceptional group $G_2$, whereas the speaker meant the target of a random Lie-group homomorphism $f : G_1 \to G_2$. | |
| Jan 7, 2022 at 17:58 | comment | added | LSpice | It was the sort of misunderstanding that could only arise between co-authors used to speaking in a familiar shorthand, but I was very confused by a collaborator's assertion that "the integers are cyclic" before I realised, after much explanation, he meant the rational integers, not the p-adic integers. (We both work in representations of $p$-adic groups.) | |
| Jan 7, 2022 at 17:47 | history | asked | John McVey | CC BY-SA 4.0 |