Timeline for Basic results with three or more hypotheses
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
48 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2015 at 11:28 | answer | added | user36212 | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 16, 2013 at 17:24 | answer | added | David Benson-Putnins | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 16, 2013 at 14:57 | answer | added | G P | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 16, 2013 at 14:54 | answer | added | G P | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 16, 2013 at 10:43 | answer | added | Emil Jeřábek | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 16, 2013 at 10:20 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | At this point I think "big-list" would be appropriate. | |
| May 16, 2013 at 6:36 | answer | added | Noah Schweber | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 15, 2013 at 19:19 | answer | added | The User | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 15, 2013 at 18:43 | comment | added | The User | @KConrad Every compact space is Hausdorff. ;) | |
| May 15, 2013 at 14:19 | answer | added | Peter Smith | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 15, 2013 at 13:11 | answer | added | Jake | timeline score: 13 | |
| May 15, 2013 at 12:03 | answer | added | Dietrich Burde | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 15, 2013 at 11:06 | answer | added | Santi Spadaro | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 15, 2013 at 4:21 | answer | added | Rodrigo A. Pérez | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 1, 2012 at 6:40 | history | edited | Andrés E. Caicedo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 25, 2011 at 16:02 | answer | added | Gerald Edgar | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 25, 2011 at 15:53 | answer | added | mathahada | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 23:22 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 21:04 | answer | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 21:00 | answer | added | Łukasz Grabowski | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 19:57 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | @Dylan: I thought that the theorem was that any weak homotopy equivalence of CW-complexes is an actual homotopy equivalence. At least this is the version cited in Hirschhorn (where it is proven for any model category). | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 19:24 | answer | added | Aaron Meyerowitz | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 18:11 | answer | added | Nate Eldredge | timeline score: 8 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 18:10 | answer | added | Louigi Addario-Berry | timeline score: 5 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 17:53 | answer | added | Nick S | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 17:39 | comment | added | KConrad | A topological group is a profinite group (that is, an inverse limit of finite groups) if and only if it is compact, Hausdorff, and totally disconnected. | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 17:33 | answer | added | Todd Trimble | timeline score: 10 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 17:09 | comment | added | Harry Altman | @Dylan Wilson: ISTM "X and Y are CW-complexes" should be considered part of the "background" in that statement. | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 16:39 | answer | added | Tony Huynh | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 16:36 | comment | added | user1073 | If a group is finitely generated, abelian and torsion free, then it is isomorphic to Z^n. | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 16:19 | answer | added | S. Carnahan♦ | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 16:19 | answer | added | user1073 | timeline score: 16 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 16:01 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | Many modern modularity lifting theorems nowadays have a gazillion hypotheses, and the conclusion "...then rho comes from a modular form". Look at the new preprint on potential modularity and change of weight, by Barnet-Lamb, Gee, Geraghty and Taylor. Theorem A has three hypotheses and theorem B has six. Of course this isn't an undergraduate-level example, but it is certainly not a "technical lemma"---these are the main results of the paper, and the paper is expecting to sell based on these theorems with many hypotheses. | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 15:55 | answer | added | Emerton | timeline score: 8 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 15:32 | comment | added | Emerton | Dear Kevin, The same class of examples came to my mind immediately! | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 13:57 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 13:30 | answer | added | Tony Scholl | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 12:31 | answer | added | Louigi Addario-Berry | timeline score: 12 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 12:05 | answer | added | Denis Serre | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 12:00 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 39 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 11:54 | answer | added | Denis Serre | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 10:52 | answer | added | Bruno Martelli | timeline score: 44 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 10:12 | history | edited | gowers | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 836 characters in body
|
| Oct 22, 2010 at 10:02 | answer | added | Gerry Myerson | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 9:35 | answer | added | Hailong Dao | timeline score: 8 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 9:00 | answer | added | KConrad | timeline score: 25 | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 8:49 | comment | added | Dylan Wilson | Whitehead: If X and Y are CW-complexes, both simply connected, and f: X ---> Y is a quasi-isomorphism, then f is a homotopy equivalence. If I remembered the theorem correctly, then that should be an example of three hypotheses leading to one conclusion. | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 8:19 | history | asked | gowers | CC BY-SA 2.5 |