Timeline for What do named "tricks" share?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
71 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 12 at 5:10 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 11 at 4:10 | history | protected | Yemon Choi | ||
| Jan 10 at 22:45 | answer | added | Monk | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 10 at 19:55 | comment | added | Dan Piponi | I was an author on a paper called Hamiltonian Swindles. A reviewer complained. I was able to reply with a quote from a paper summarizing what might be called a swindle in the relevant domain. And that allowed me to keep the name. So never let it be said that these kinds of questions aren't relevant to anything :) | |
| Jan 10 at 19:50 | answer | added | Michael Hardy | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 22, 2022 at 19:00 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 22, 2022 at 13:49 | comment | added | Dan | Is there a trick for counting 11 tricks as 10? | |
| Nov 22, 2022 at 10:14 | history | edited | Gerry Myerson |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 21, 2022 at 7:23 | history | edited | The Amplitwist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed some broken links
|
| Feb 11, 2022 at 17:03 | comment | added | Manfred Weis | what about the 17 camels tricks ( mathoverflow.net/questions/271608/17-camels-trick)? | |
| Feb 11, 2022 at 13:47 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | The link for the Karatsuba trick is probably supposed to go to the paper On Karatsuba Multiplication Algorithm. (Although I wasn't sure - and it is possible that the current link doesn't work only for me.) It's quite difficult to say what the links for the Herglotz trick used to be. (Of course, the link rot for the springerlink.com links is a well-known issue.) | |
| Feb 11, 2022 at 13:40 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http -> https (the question was bumped anyway)
|
| Oct 26, 2021 at 22:02 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 230 characters in body
|
| Oct 26, 2021 at 17:22 | comment | added | Richard Lyons | There's the "Brauer trick" in finite group theory for proving that two subgroups of a finite group generate a proper subgroup. It has worked more than once, but it has a magical feeling. Let $H$ and $K$ be subgroups of the finite group $G$. Let $\chi$ be a non-principal irreducible complex character of $G$. If $(\chi_H,1_H)+(\chi_K,1_K)>(\chi_{H\cap K},1_{H\cap K})$, then $\langle H,K \rangle<G$. | |
| Oct 26, 2017 at 5:58 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 26, 2017 at 9:19 | |||||
| May 28, 2017 at 0:21 | answer | added | Che | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 27, 2017 at 18:31 | answer | added | José Hdz. Stgo. | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Mar 2, 2017 at 3:27 | answer | added | user78249 | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 2:41 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 82 characters in body
|
| Mar 2, 2017 at 2:05 | answer | added | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 1:47 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 64 characters in body
|
| Sep 12, 2016 at 21:41 | comment | added | user40276 | There's the Moser trick in symplectic geometry. But actually people abuse the use of this name by "applying" it whenever there's a flow transporting some isomorphism. | |
| Sep 12, 2016 at 21:26 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added Minty's trick to the first list
|
| Feb 11, 2016 at 14:24 | comment | added | Nick Gill | Another possible entry in the list : the Frattini argument. I thought of it when I read Qiaochu's answer (which I thought was spot on) -- it's a very handy little, um, thingy to know when working with finite groups. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 14:16 | comment | added | Nick Gill | Just to add to your list -- one of the commenters above has a trick named after him :-) Nikolov and Pyber used a result of Gowers about solving equations in groups to prove a nice fact about the multiplication of (large) sets in groups. The method they used is known as the Gowers trick. I believe it was Pyber who came up with the name -- you can see the name in use in the literature in several places, for instance in Breuillard's Introduction to approximate groups. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 13:17 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 39 | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 1:54 | history | edited | Tadashi |
Added relevant tag
|
|
| S Feb 10, 2016 at 15:34 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Corrected two bad links
|
| Feb 10, 2016 at 15:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 10, 2016 at 15:34 | |||||
| Dec 26, 2010 at 22:14 | answer | added | jasomill | timeline score: 5 | |
| Dec 6, 2010 at 0:10 | comment | added | Joseph O'Rourke | A new question is emerging: Why are some tricks named after their inventor, but other (determinant-, kernel-, W-) tricks not? | |
| Dec 6, 2010 at 0:09 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
non-eponymous trick added
|
| Dec 5, 2010 at 22:30 | answer | added | Michael Hardy | timeline score: 5 | |
| Dec 5, 2010 at 22:18 | comment | added | gowers | Another one is the W-trick: michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=W-trick With it, you intersect the primes with a suitably chosen arithmetic progression to increase their density and make them look more random. | |
| Dec 5, 2010 at 21:59 | answer | added | Nate Eldredge | timeline score: 46 | |
| Dec 5, 2010 at 21:16 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Fixing (I hope!) E-M swindle URL syntax.
|
| Dec 5, 2010 at 10:36 | history | edited | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added "Zarhin's Trick"
|
| Dec 5, 2010 at 2:09 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 20 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2010 at 2:01 | comment | added | Carl Mummert | There is also "Grilliot's trick" in computability theory. | |
| Dec 5, 2010 at 1:57 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 378 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2010 at 1:14 | comment | added | Max | ... and the "kernel trick" is also not named for a person, but it is called "trick" | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 22:25 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | Missing from your list at the moment is the "determinant trick" in commutative algebra. | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 19:52 | comment | added | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine | I believe that there’s more than one “Scott’s trick”, though unfortunately I can’t recall what the others are! But I definitely remember mentioning the cardinality (or more generally, quotients-of-classes) trick in a seminar once, and being told by several audience members that “Scott’s trick” meant something else to them. Of course, that was in Pittsburgh (though some years after Scott moved away), so the audience were probably particularly familiar with his tricks. | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 19:45 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 23 characters in body
|
| Dec 4, 2010 at 18:50 | comment | added | Spiro Karigiannis | You're also missing the "Uhlenbeck trick" which is central in Ricci flow just as the deTurck trick. I think that the tendency to call them 'tricks' versus 'methods' is really a matter of personal taste and/or what people are used to from mathematicians that they learned from. I personally don't like using 'trick' for anything in mathematics. | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 18:33 | comment | added | j.c. | It seems appropriate to link to the Tricki here in the comments tricki.org | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 18:31 | history | edited | j.c. | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
spelling
|
| Dec 4, 2010 at 17:47 | comment | added | Tom Church | There's the Alexander trick, showing that two homeomorphisms of the ball which agree on the boundary are isotopic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_trick | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 17:30 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 1 characters in body; added 14 characters in body
|
| Dec 4, 2010 at 17:26 | answer | added | Michael Hardy | timeline score: 5 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 17:23 | comment | added | Ed Dean | There's the "Craig trick" showing that theories with r.e. axiomatizations have recursive axiomatizations. | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 17:20 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 160 characters in body; added 12 characters in body; added 6 characters in body; added 19 characters in body
|
| Dec 4, 2010 at 17:20 | answer | added | Qiaochu Yuan | timeline score: 61 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 17:17 | history | edited | Thierry Zell | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Added new tricks. Links are welcome!
|
| Dec 4, 2010 at 16:21 | comment | added | Tom Goodwillie | There's also the Higman Trick (for manipulating invertible matrices over polynomial rings and such -- probably akin to the Atiyah rotation trick). | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 16:17 | comment | added | Joseph O'Rourke | @Simon: Yes, it does make one wonder! I suspect the web site is constructed by wisdom-seeking bots, and it is somehow appropriate that they stumble upon the profound Whitney trick :-). For those mystified because I replaced the link, here is the original: experiencefestival.com/… | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 16:07 | comment | added | Simon Rose | @Joseph: I'm more wondering why they had that on their site than otherwise. | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 15:55 | comment | added | Paul Siegel | How about "Atiyah's Rotation Trick"? It is most famous for its role in proving Bott periodicity, but it comes up elsewhere in operator theory as well. Yet it still deserves to be called a trick, in my opinion. | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 13:20 | comment | added | Joseph O'Rourke | @Simon: I replaced the strange Whitney trick link. Sorry about that. | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 13:19 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Replace Whitnet trick link
|
| Dec 4, 2010 at 7:42 | answer | added | none | timeline score: 14 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 6:29 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Joseph O'Rourke | ||
| Dec 4, 2010 at 6:22 | comment | added | Alex B. | Are you expecting a definitive answer to this? If not, then CW would surely be in order? | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 6:13 | answer | added | Jim Bryan | timeline score: 43 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 5:42 | comment | added | Simon Rose | Why is the page linking to the Whitney trick linking to a "Global Oneness" site? <br> <br> Why do they even have a page on Whitney embedding on a site about spirituality? I'm very confused. | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 5:36 | comment | added | Charles Rezk | You could add the Eilenberg Swindle to your list. (A Swindle sounds even more disreputable than a Trick.) | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 4:58 | comment | added | Tom Goodwillie | That construction of Whitney ought to have a more dignified name. | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 4:45 | comment | added | Andrey Rekalo | "An idea which can be used only once is a trick. If one can use it more than once it becomes a method." Quoted from books.google.co.uk/… | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 4:43 | answer | added | Lamont C | timeline score: 8 | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 4:35 | history | asked | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |