Timeline for Most important results in 2022
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
42 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 27, 2023 at 20:26 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 28, 2023 at 17:01 | |||||
| Dec 23, 2022 at 16:15 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | @Timothy, also $6=1^3+1^3+1^3+1^3+1^3+1^3$. | |
| Dec 23, 2022 at 15:21 | answer | added | Bogdan Grechuk | timeline score: 20 | |
| Dec 17, 2022 at 19:31 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 23, 2022 at 3:04 | |||||
| Dec 17, 2022 at 16:51 | comment | added | user44143 | Correction: The new result is that least $2/21$ of the integers are like $6$ in being the sum of two rational cubes, and at least $1/6$ are not such a sum. people.math.harvard.edu/~alpoge/papers/… | |
| Dec 17, 2022 at 16:39 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @MattF. I don't understand your comment about showing that 6 is a not a sum of rational cubes, since $6 = (17/21)^3 + (37/21)^3$. | |
| Dec 16, 2022 at 14:45 | answer | added | JoshuaZ | timeline score: 16 | |
| Dec 15, 2022 at 6:04 | comment | added | Seewoo Lee | I hope this become a tradition for every year, it is interesting to know such results from other area that I don't know well | |
| Dec 15, 2022 at 5:16 | history | edited | Luis Alexandher | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Dec 5, 2022 at 18:07 | comment | added | Louis Deaett | A wonderful survey of (a few of the) biggest developments in both pure and applied math each year is provided by the Current Events Bulletin lectures at the JMM, and the write-ups prepared by the authors to accompany those. These go back almost 20 years now: ams.org/meetings/lectures/current-events-bulletin | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 17:37 | answer | added | Pace Nielsen | timeline score: 22 | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 17:26 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 10, 2022 at 19:38 | |||||
| Dec 5, 2022 at 17:08 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
zhang -> Zhang
|
| Dec 5, 2022 at 15:02 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | Keevash's 2014 result that combinatorial designs exist (arxiv.org/abs/1401.3665) was one of the biggest results in combinatorics in the last 20 years. A new paper by Keevash--Sah--Sawhney (arxiv.org/abs/2212.00870) that proves the natural finite vector space analog of the existence of designs was just posted to the arXiv last night. It seems like a big result to me. | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 14:51 | answer | added | JoshuaZ | timeline score: 46 | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 14:02 | comment | added | user44143 | I’d prefer “what new results from 2022 have statements that most mathematicians will understand?” Possible answers include @AlecRhea’s of defining integration on the surreals, or showing that 6 is not a sum of rational cubes. | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 9:16 | answer | added | Alessandro Della Corte | timeline score: 9 | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 8:59 | history | reopened |
Alec Rhea José Hdz. Stgo. JoshuaZ Timothy Chow Dattier |
||
| Dec 5, 2022 at 5:16 | history | edited | Luis Alexandher | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 47 characters in body
|
| Dec 4, 2022 at 16:09 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @JonnyEvans Sometimes I am also "sleepy". Or "sneezy" | |
| Dec 4, 2022 at 14:04 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @JonnyEvans Several questions with the word "important" have been highly upvoted in the past, e.g., this one and this one. I agree that what's important is subjective, but according to the help page, "subjective" questions aren't always inappropriate, whereas "What's your favorite...?" is explicitly called out as inappropriate. | |
| Dec 4, 2022 at 13:58 | history | left closed in review |
Alex M. Michael Albanese Alexey Ustinov |
Original close reason(s) were not resolved | |
| Dec 4, 2022 at 7:21 | comment | added | Jonny Evans | @Yemon: I even thought of you when I wrote "grumpy". I still think the wording is problematic: "important" sounds objective, but it's still in the eye of the beholder (and may not manifest itself for years to come). "Your favourite" would be a more upfront way to phrase it: recognising that any answers are necessarily subjective. (I have the same reaction every time I read an overblown Quanta article.) | |
| Dec 4, 2022 at 3:02 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | +1 @JonnyEvans - I had a similar reaction to the original wording of the question. | |
| Dec 4, 2022 at 2:59 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @TimothyChow I didn't upvote the question you link to, but arguably it has the added virtue of implicitly asking for "important breakthroughs" within particular disciplines, while the present question in its original form seemed to invite a ranking of importance/impact across disciplines | |
| Dec 2, 2022 at 18:06 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @AlecRhea As a workaround, you could post something here. | |
| Dec 2, 2022 at 16:45 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Dec 4, 2022 at 13:58 | |||||
| Dec 2, 2022 at 16:45 | comment | added | Alec Rhea | Surreal integration was finally defined this year; I was looking forward to posting about it... | |
| Dec 2, 2022 at 16:04 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | A similar question last year was highly upvoted. I am personally undecided about whether this type of question is appropriate for MO, but it definitely seems inconsistent for the other question to receive 100+ upvotes and for this one to be closed. (Maybe the fact that Yitang Zhang's result was mentioned before it has been properly vetted by experts has something to do with it.) | |
| Dec 2, 2022 at 15:04 | history | edited | Luis Alexandher | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 14 characters in body
|
| Dec 2, 2022 at 12:57 | history | closed |
Jochen Wengenroth Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda Jochen Glueck Tom De Medts Alison Miller |
Opinion-based | |
| Dec 2, 2022 at 12:12 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Dec 2, 2022 at 10:56 | comment | added | Jonny Evans | Here's a more constructive version of my previous comment. ArXiv has some useful (but non-obvious) functionality: namely, you can see everything that's been posted on arXiv in a given area in a given month by entering something like arxiv.org/list/math.XX/YYMM e.g. arxiv.org/list/math.SG/2211 | |
| Dec 2, 2022 at 10:50 | comment | added | Jonny Evans | Maybe I'm just being grumpy, but aren't the answers necessarily going to be opinion-based? ("Posted this year" is objectively measurable, but "great impact" isn't) | |
| Dec 2, 2022 at 10:48 | comment | added | Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda | The linked question is about an older pre-print from Zhang, this one is the right one. | |
| Dec 2, 2022 at 10:34 | answer | added | Lennart Meier | timeline score: 36 | |
| Dec 2, 2022 at 7:21 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | So, we're just going to ignore December? | |
| Dec 2, 2022 at 7:20 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Asaf Karagila♦ | ||
| Dec 2, 2022 at 6:41 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 2, 2022 at 13:07 | |||||
| Dec 2, 2022 at 4:22 | comment | added | Thomas Kojar | check out Quanta magazine quantamagazine.org they go over many math results. | |
| S Dec 2, 2022 at 4:12 | review | First questions | |||
| Dec 2, 2022 at 11:05 | |||||
| S Dec 2, 2022 at 4:12 | history | asked | Luis Alexandher | CC BY-SA 4.0 |