Timeline for Classification of PDE
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 11, 2017 at 22:28 | vote | accept | AFK | ||
| Mar 3, 2015 at 19:36 | history | edited | Ricardo Andrade | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected typos left uncorrected by the previous edit; removed deprecated tag 'geometry'
|
| S Mar 3, 2015 at 19:19 | history | suggested | Ali Taghavi |
I add a tag
|
|
| Mar 3, 2015 at 19:09 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 3, 2015 at 19:19 | |||||
| Jun 9, 2011 at 15:56 | history | edited | AFK | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 194 characters in body
|
| Jun 6, 2011 at 21:32 | answer | added | Deane Yang | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 21:09 | comment | added | Nilima Nigam | YBL, thanks for the clarification. Indeed, we don't have a good global classification of PDEs, for the reasons alluded to in the answers below. For this reason, I don't find it helpful to belabor classification in PDE classes. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 20:58 | comment | added | AFK | @Nilima Nigam. I think I took every precaution and made it very clear that the last question was a "bonus". I do have an algebraic geometry background but I'm keeping an open mind and I am willing to hear any point of vue. I'm just looking for a global approach to PDE's. The problem is that the answers I got were along the lines of "don't worry about it" or "we do things this way because it works". What I'm hoping for is an answer along the lines of "We don't have a good classification of PDE's for this reason and this reason..." | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 20:57 | answer | added | Ben McKay | timeline score: 17 | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 20:56 | comment | added | AFK | @Theo Buehler. Thanks for the link I will read it thorougly. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 20:52 | answer | added | Denis Serre | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 20:28 | comment | added | Nilima Nigam | Dear YBL, Q5 seems to invite opinion. Perhaps you could rephrase your question to make it more precise? I don't see how you can get a clear answer to this question. Some may find PDE intrinsically easier to grasp than algebraic geometry, others the reverse. You allude to a tortuous path to PDE for yourself. Are you asking how, given such a path, PDE can be made more accessible? | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 20:20 | answer | added | Nilima Nigam | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 20:20 | comment | added | Theo Buehler | Willie Wong wrote an extremely nice answer on math.stackexchange.com/q/21525 to a different question, nevertheless you might be interested in having a look at it. | |
| Jun 4, 2011 at 20:18 | history | edited | Thierry Zell |
Fixed the tags. Please refrain from making up new tags!
|
|
| Jun 4, 2011 at 20:07 | history | edited | AFK | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 23 characters in body; added 13 characters in body; added 2 characters in body; added 8 characters in body
|
| Jun 4, 2011 at 20:00 | history | asked | AFK | CC BY-SA 3.0 |