Timeline for Proofs that require fundamentally new ways of thinking
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 10, 2010 at 0:56 | history | edited | M.G. | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 71 characters in body
|
| Dec 9, 2010 at 22:17 | comment | added | M.G. | @all: Please consider Henry Wilton´s plea! Thanks! :-) | |
| Dec 9, 2010 at 21:43 | comment | added | Nick Salter | @ Max Muller: In the spirit of accuracy (but without wanting to move towards opening up any cans of worms) I believe it is the case that Furstenburg's is not a repackaging of analytic ideas, but rather Euclid's original argument. | |
| Dec 9, 2010 at 21:18 | comment | added | M.G. | Well, ok, I was not aware of all these discussions (I have just found some more, lol). I agree though that its mathematical value is doubtful as it seems to be just a reformulation of Euclid´s proof, yet I find it amusing that such reformulation is possible... No more discussion about it. Period. :-) | |
| Dec 9, 2010 at 19:44 | comment | added | Robin Chapman | And others think it's the usual proof in disguise :-) | |
| Dec 9, 2010 at 19:35 | comment | added | Max Lonysa Muller | @ ex falso quodlibet: I think I know what Henry Wilton is talking about. On at least one question on MO I saw multiple users talking about Furstenberg's proof. Some view it as a very original idea, as it claims to prove the infitude of the primes by means of topological methods. Others think that it isn't exactly a topological proof. They think it's more of a analytical proof, which incorporates ideas from calculus and analysis, aritmetic progressions in particular. | |
| Dec 9, 2010 at 19:27 | comment | added | John Stillwell | See mathoverflow.net/questions/42512/… | |
| Dec 9, 2010 at 19:16 | comment | added | HJRW | A plea in advance - can we not have this discussion again? | |
| Dec 9, 2010 at 19:07 | history | answered | M.G. | CC BY-SA 2.5 |