Timeline for Is there another controversial statement by Grothendieck apart from 57 being prime?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 15, 2023 at 19:34 | comment | added | Georges Elencwajg | @polfosol "But I think it's the nature of a controversial statement that some might not consider it as one." Ah, that's an amusing but profound remark! | |
| Jan 14, 2023 at 12:32 | comment | added | polfosol | @Franz "He wrote that he and other established mathematicians had no need for additional financial support and criticized what he saw as the declining ethics of the scientific community that was characterized by outright scientific theft that he believed had become commonplace and tolerated". I find the first sentence to be highly controversial. But I think it's the nature of a controversial statement that some might not consider it as one. | |
| Jan 14, 2023 at 8:20 | comment | added | Franz Lemmermeyer | @polfosol: I couldn't find a single controversial statement in the list. | |
| Jan 12, 2023 at 17:09 | comment | added | polfosol | By "controversial statement" do you mean a purely mathematical one? Because otherwise the list would not be short. | |
| Jan 12, 2023 at 16:08 | comment | added | Kapil | ... contd. The last sentence seems to work for some $\tau$ but not all of them. Note that this paper is not "controversial". Indeed, it is very insightful. It is just curious that when providing a concrete example (or as concrete as it gets with G!), there are numerous inaccuracies which one would not expect! One can work out the example he "means" to write and it is indeed an example of the type he wants. | |
| Jan 12, 2023 at 16:04 | comment | added | Kapil | In Grothendieck's paper Hodge's general conjecture is false for trivial reasons example the last paragraph on page 300 before the start of section 2. I believe that every statement in that paragraph is in some way incorrect. There is a typographical error in line 1. In line 2 he asserts something about the vector space generated $j$-fold products of distinct elements of a collection of complex numbers which is incorrect without additional assumptions.... contd. below | |
| Jan 12, 2023 at 10:53 | comment | added | Georges Elencwajg | Dear @YCor: yes, it had not escaped my attention that there is no actual controversy about 57 being or not prime nor about 344/133 being or not a good approximation of $\pi$... | |
| Jan 12, 2023 at 9:20 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 20, 2023 at 3:04 | |||||
| Jan 12, 2023 at 8:56 | comment | added | YCor | Possibly you're joking, but this is not of a "controversy" but just thoughtlessness, and, in the written example $344/133$, just a careless typo. Fortunately not every typo by an important mathematician is a controversy. | |
| Jan 12, 2023 at 3:17 | history | became hot network question | |||
| S Jan 11, 2023 at 19:15 | answer | added | Georges Elencwajg | timeline score: 33 | |
| S Jan 11, 2023 at 19:15 | history | asked | Georges Elencwajg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |