Timeline for Is the Invariant Subspace Problem interesting?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28, 2019 at 14:14 | history | edited | YCor |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 28, 2019 at 13:55 | answer | added | Nik Weaver | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jan 30, 2013 at 9:39 | answer | added | Don Hadwin | timeline score: 17 | |
| Jan 21, 2012 at 7:21 | vote | accept | William DeMeo | ||
| Dec 11, 2010 at 16:56 | comment | added | Bill Johnson | Yes, Charlie. Much of the recent work of Pearcy et al has at its roots the wonderful insights of Scott Brown, which I guess are now considered "classical". | |
| Dec 11, 2010 at 3:13 | comment | added | Charlie Frohman | I meant that it had been resolved, negatively and positively for large classes of operators. Less well thought out, as I am not an operator theorist, but along the lines of Bill Johnson's answer, but I probably would have cited work of Scott Brown too. | |
| Dec 10, 2010 at 23:53 | comment | added | William DeMeo | @Charlie: when you say "For the most part the problem was resolved" I take it you mean, "whether or not the problem is interesting has been resolved" [and the answer is "yes, it is interesting"], but please correct me if you really meant "for the most part the ISP was resolved" (because that would be surprising). In any case, thanks to all three of you (TCL, TZ, CF) for your thoughful comments. | |
| Dec 10, 2010 at 23:46 | vote | accept | William DeMeo | ||
| Jan 21, 2012 at 7:19 | |||||
| Dec 10, 2010 at 16:28 | answer | added | Bill Johnson | timeline score: 44 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 at 13:50 | comment | added | Charlie Frohman | For the most part the problem was resolved. The structure of linear operators is important in applications of mathematics to the physical sciences, so it is interesting outside of mathematics. The ideas in General Topology and Finite Group Theory are important too, but like Functional analysis, the circle of ideas inherent in the problems in the field are understood to the extent that they can be, and until some more ideas are added, they will be relatively dormant areas. | |
| Dec 10, 2010 at 13:40 | comment | added | Thierry Zell | Possibly the fact that the problem can be so simply stated and yet seems to need more than just the fundamental tools in the area makes it intrinsically interesting. So even if there are no applications, it may be useful as a yardstick to see the limitations of basic techniques. Of course, saying that the question is interesting in that sense is not the same as saying that it's worth investing tons of energy to solve it. Cf Jacobian Conjecture. | |
| Dec 10, 2010 at 12:12 | comment | added | TCL | Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. | |
| Dec 10, 2010 at 11:48 | history | asked | William DeMeo | CC BY-SA 2.5 |