Timeline for A Generalization of Hadamard?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 2, 2011 at 7:07 | comment | added | Peter Luthy | Obviously Mariano was mostly joking, but I think the grammar in the title works fine; one frequently uses 'of' in the sense of 'owing to', e.g. the lemma of Schwarz (I think my professor used this form mostly because it was easier to say, frankly, but there is also a historical trend for that particular lemma). We often leave the originator's name in theorems even if they were later generalized, as was indicated above with the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (sorry Bunyakovsky). Plus isn't it a bit poetic that Hadamard might exist through mathematics in some generalized way even after his death? | |
| Jun 2, 2011 at 3:08 | comment | added | Bill Johnson | I guess you know Stoilow's theorem (see p. 121 in his 1956 book Lecon sur les principes... or Google Stoilow's theorem)? If $f$ is a discrete open mapping of the plane, then $f = P(h)$ with $h$ a homeomorphism of the plane onto a (simply connected) domain and $P$ an analytic function. There are some generalizations that relax the openness assumption (to allow folding, for example). | |
| May 19, 2011 at 4:01 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | There is no need of apologizing! It was just a silly remark of mine :) | |
| May 5, 2011 at 19:12 | comment | added | dick lipton | I apologize for getting the title wrong. I could not think of the right title. | |
| May 5, 2011 at 3:53 | comment | added | LSpice | Yemon, while I indulge in the same usage, there is a bit of a difference; to say “by Cauchy–Schwarz” is to suggest that they are communicating to you the truth of the result, which one can accept metaphorically—the statement makes sense without identifying them with their inequality. On the other hand, “a generalisation of Hadamard” can make sense only if we identify Hadamard with his theorem. | |
| May 4, 2011 at 23:31 | answer | added | André Henriques | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 4, 2011 at 22:01 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Anton: touché. But then we are into the realms of arguing about Tychonov's theorem and the (Stone-)Cech compactification... | |
| May 4, 2011 at 19:35 | comment | added | Anton Petrunin | Yes, you are not the only person who says "Cauchy-Schwarz" when should say "Bunyakovsky" :) | |
| May 4, 2011 at 18:54 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Mariano: true, but surely I can't be the only person to sometimes say "by Cauchy-Schwarz" in informal settings? | |
| May 4, 2011 at 18:43 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | The generalization you want is not of Hadamard himself but of his theorem, presumably! | |
| May 4, 2011 at 18:24 | history | asked | dick lipton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |