Timeline for Most intricate and most beautiful structures in mathematics
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2010 at 16:33 | comment | added | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine | But the point I do agree with, and have never seen a serious argument against, is that if mathematicians are working with something, and working with it mathematically, then it is mathematics — and if it doesn’t quite fit into a particular foundation, this is a problem with the foundation, not the mathematics. If it looks like a mathematical object, smells like a mathematical object, has theorems about it like a mathematical object, then it’s a mathematical object. | |
| Dec 16, 2010 at 16:29 | comment | added | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine | @Harry: it is without question a mathematical object! Conway’s manifesto for the “Mathematicians’ Liberation Movement” is worth reading in this connection — the liberation being from foundational constraints. It can be read as dismissive of questions of foundations — and I’d strongly disagree with that; I work largely with foundational structures, I think they can be very illuminating, and I care passionately about them. [cont’d] | |
| Dec 14, 2010 at 21:48 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @Harry: I suspect that what you meant is either that it's not a set or that it's not one of the things referred to in the first-order language of set theory. Or something like that. And I have to suspect that David Roberts had the same thing in mind. But I think the idea that that is the essence of mathematical-objecthood is debatable. | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 23:24 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | Today the math notation is visible. | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 22:52 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @Harry - in GBN or algebraic set theory... | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 22:19 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | This is not even a mathematical object. Next! | |
| Dec 12, 2010 at 20:01 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | I've looked at this from two different browsers and on one of them I do see the mathematical notation. On the other I see that something is the smallest cardinal greater than 0 that is known not to be equal to 2. (Of course, that's not what I wrote!) Except that the "0" has a space before it and is in a subscript position, and the 2 has a space after it before the period. Before today, math notation in TeX on math overflow was legible. Something changed. I've reported the bug on meta. | |
| Dec 12, 2010 at 19:27 | history | edited | Michael Hardy | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Dec 12, 2010 at 19:19 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | I think I've heard that one too. | |
| Dec 12, 2010 at 18:26 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | I've heard "V" is called that way because of Von Neumann. I haven't seen definite evidence one way or the other. | |
| Dec 12, 2010 at 18:21 | history | edited | Harald Hanche-Olsen | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Removed double underscore, added backquotes
|
| Dec 12, 2010 at 18:04 | history | answered | Michael Hardy | CC BY-SA 2.5 |