Timeline for What should be taught in a 1st course on smooth manifolds?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 27, 2011 at 3:00 | vote | accept | jlk | ||
| Mar 22, 2011 at 4:51 | comment | added | Mike Hall | I learned what a smooth manifold was by taking a course on Morse Theory out of Milnor's book (taught by a cool professor). I'm fond of the experience, but a careful read of Guillemin and Pollack might have been better for me in the long run. | |
| Mar 22, 2011 at 1:16 | answer | added | David MJC | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 21, 2011 at 20:18 | answer | added | John Klein | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 21, 2011 at 16:38 | answer | added | John Sidles | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 20, 2011 at 23:46 | answer | added | Spencer | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 20, 2011 at 20:36 | answer | added | Charlie Frohman | timeline score: 17 | |
| Mar 20, 2011 at 1:41 | answer | added | Deane Yang | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 19, 2011 at 20:17 | comment | added | jlk | @Mark Grant: A course covering more than the two books combined would indeed be ambitious. I had in mind the goal of finding material that could be a substitute for some of the topics in the listed books | |
| Mar 19, 2011 at 19:46 | answer | added | Paul Siegel | timeline score: 8 | |
| Mar 19, 2011 at 19:13 | history | edited | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 19, 2011 at 10:56 | comment | added | Mark Grant | @John, Yemon: You're quite right, I forgot to hit the sarcasm button. | |
| Mar 19, 2011 at 8:26 | answer | added | agt | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 19, 2011 at 2:38 | answer | added | Anton Petrunin | timeline score: 17 | |
| Mar 19, 2011 at 1:42 | answer | added | Hong Liu | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 19, 2011 at 1:13 | answer | added | R. Andrew Hicks | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 19, 2011 at 0:56 | comment | added | Deane Yang | I agree with Qiaochu that it is more than enough just to work through Guillemin and Pollack carefully. If you want, you can also allude to what happens in higher dimensions and refer to Miilnor's classic "Topology from a Differentiable Viewpoint" on which Guillemin and Pollack's book is based. | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 23:56 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Based on Mark's punctuation, I think he is making more of a rhetorical point than an actual suggestion (though I didn't read the original question the way he seems to have had) | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 23:29 | answer | added | Georges Elencwajg | timeline score: 26 | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 23:27 | comment | added | Martin M. W. | I'm just glad you mentioned Milnor's book, which made me fall in love with differential topology. I think the concrete, transparent approach conveys the beauty of the subject better than any other text. | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 22:53 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Personally I would be quite happy with just a course that covers the material in Guillemin and Pollack thoroughly... | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 22:05 | comment | added | John Klein | @Mark: you must be kidding. The students jlk mentions are only 1st graduate students & undergraduates, and you are suggesting Smale-Hirsch theory as a topic! | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 21:16 | answer | added | AFK | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 20:56 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| Mar 18, 2011 at 20:50 | comment | added | Mark Grant | You mean to cover more topics than are covered in those books combined?! How about Morse Thoery, the h-cobordism theorem, and the Smale-Hirsch theory of immersions? | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 20:35 | history | asked | jlk | CC BY-SA 2.5 |