Timeline for Why is algebraic geometry so over-represented on this site?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2009 at 20:09 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Anton Geraschenko | ||
| Nov 20, 2009 at 19:43 | history | edited | Greg Muller | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Nov 20, 2009 at 19:32 | comment | added | Steve Huntsman | Also I think the founder effect makes a lot of sense, but doesn't fully explain it. | |
| Nov 20, 2009 at 19:30 | comment | added | Steve Huntsman | Moving on to the other part of my original question, might it be useful to (say) invite leaders from a cross-section of fields to occasionally post questions appropriate to the site as a way of driving the distribution to uniformity? | |
| Nov 20, 2009 at 19:28 | comment | added | Steve Huntsman | Greg's comment strikes me as being onto something. Modern AG (I think of Grothendieck as the dividing line) is very abstract, especially considering its basis in very concrete objects. At the same time part of Grothendieck's legacy is that a lot of "folk" results from EGA and SGA weren't formalized and reworked in the same way that results in other disciplines would have been. The result seems to be a genuinely different culture. Combine that with a steep learning curve... | |
| Nov 20, 2009 at 19:22 | vote | accept | Steve Huntsman | ||
| Nov 20, 2009 at 19:21 | vote | accept | Steve Huntsman | ||
| Nov 20, 2009 at 19:22 | |||||
| Nov 20, 2009 at 19:10 | comment | added | Jason Dyer | To add a comment from a non-AGer, the disciplines I am interested in are well-documented and intuitive enough that most of the questions I have thought of for MO have been resolved by a simple Internet / other reference check, so they never got posted. | |
| Nov 20, 2009 at 18:36 | history | answered | Greg Muller | CC BY-SA 2.5 |