Timeline for Can infinity shorten proofs a lot?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 18, 2009 at 12:24 | comment | added | Kevin H. Lin | Yes, of course you don't say the words "affine variety". But it is not unreasonable to talk about A^1 and P^1, and then A^2 and P^2, at the very least. | |
| Nov 17, 2009 at 23:55 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @Harrison I was being slightly tongue in cheek there. Didn't say anything about what happened to the other half of the audience... | |
| Nov 17, 2009 at 22:50 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Of course you don't have to say the words "affine variety." The example that comes to mind is that projectivizing the circle turns the almost-isomorphism between the line and the circle into an isomorphism, but if you only care about finitary things (like Pythagorean triples) this doesn't really matter... | |
| Nov 17, 2009 at 22:45 | comment | added | Harrison Brown | There's somewhere where a general audience's eyes wouldn't start to glaze over at that point? In the immortal words of Liz Lemon, "I want to go to there." | |
| Nov 17, 2009 at 18:57 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Given that this is for "a presentation to the general public" - if this is in the UK then I'm pessimistic about even saying the words "affine variety" without losing half the attention of half the audience | |
| Nov 17, 2009 at 15:53 | history | answered | Kevin H. Lin | CC BY-SA 2.5 |