Timeline for What is the significance of non-commutative geometry in mathematics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Aug 7, 2023 at 8:45 | history | suggested | plm | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Just corrected the reference to Connes's standard book.
|
| Aug 7, 2023 at 4:29 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 7, 2023 at 8:45 | |||||
| Dec 18, 2021 at 4:00 | history | protected | Yemon Choi | ||
| Dec 17, 2021 at 15:10 | answer | added | Mozibur Ullah | timeline score: -2 | |
| Dec 17, 2021 at 8:23 | answer | added | G P S | timeline score: -4 | |
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:27 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jan 23, 2020 at 1:45 | answer | added | Tom Copeland | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 28, 2016 at 9:40 | comment | added | Al-Amrani | The preceding reference explains what really non-commutative geometry is (in mathematics, and , above all, in physics !) It was published when Connes got gold medal from CNRS (2004). | |
| Mar 28, 2016 at 9:26 | comment | added | Al-Amrani | www2.cnrs.fr/sites/communique/.../la_geometrie_non_commutative.pdf | |
| May 25, 2012 at 22:13 | answer | added | user5831 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Feb 25, 2012 at 20:34 | history | edited | Ehsan M. Kermani | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typos
|
| Feb 14, 2012 at 2:36 | vote | accept | Ehsan M. Kermani | ||
| Feb 12, 2012 at 22:19 | answer | added | Ronnie Brown | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 21:03 | answer | added | Jon Bannon | timeline score: 14 | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 18:50 | comment | added | Ehsan M. Kermani | Dear @Yemon Choi: In fact, I don't intend to think like that. I wanted to know what the reactions are when I say the words that I was told some years ago about this field. This might be another subject for discussion. BTW, I've intended to work in a field which has common features of NCG, in some sense, regarding the grant, postdoc, etc. and now, is not very supported and funded, but it appeals me the most, is still growing and good works are being done. | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 18:17 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | ehsanmo, it is counterproductive to think like this, and I suspect your list of "leading and well-known math dep" is more subjective than you realize. Trying to put a total order on domains of maths is specious. I see from your profile that you are still at an early stage of your studies/career, so I reiterate that you should concentrate on finding mathematics that appeals to you and where good work is being done. My opening remarks about grant success were really meant ironically, and in any case only really apply later in your mathematical development. | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 18:03 | comment | added | Ehsan M. Kermani | @Mattew Daws: I agree, but by that I wanted to find out more about interests in this field, since not only there is no one in my math department who's working on a related subject, but when I look into faculty members' specializations of leading and well-known math dep. throughout the word, I hardly find anyone currently working in this field, also. So the Alain Valette's comment's motivated me to ask such a marketing question. | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 14:59 | comment | added | Matthew Daws | While the original question was quite good, I have to say that these comments are descending very rapidly into "subjective and argumentative" territory. MO is absolutely not about "ranking" subjects etc. Also, shouldn't this be community wiki... | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 13:36 | answer | added | Paul Siegel | timeline score: 60 | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 10:50 | comment | added | Ehsan M. Kermani | @Alain Valette: How would you rank NCG in the category of top 5 important and fashionable subjects? I know, it's a naive question, though. | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 10:25 | comment | added | Amin | @Yemon Choi and @ehsanmo: You're totally right about NCG, C*-algebras and algebraic geometry being distinct with no inclusion of one in other, I was just meaning to point on common $roots$ between all of them, the latter two being, imo, the only accessible at grad level. | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 10:20 | comment | added | Alain Valette | @ehsanmo: I agree with Yemon, you have better chances to get a grant or a job if you can say you are in NCG... Remember that, besides "good" or "important" mathematics, there are also "sexy" and "fashionable" mathematics... | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 10:09 | answer | added | Alexander Chervov | timeline score: 9 | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 10:04 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @ehsanmo: if you look up my own work to date and background, you will see that I might possibly have been very slightly sarcastic. If you want to believe NCG is "idiotic", go for it. Like I said, learn to do good mathematics, before worrying about "important" mathematics | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 9:35 | comment | added | Ehsan M. Kermani | @Amin: what do you mean by "it's algebraic geometry"? also, I don't take $C*-algebra as a real example of NCG! | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 9:01 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @Amin: I know people in operator algebras who most definitely do not see themselves as doing NC(D)G or NCT. There seems to be a lot more to NCG than C*-algebras, and more to C*-algebras than NCG | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 8:58 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Personally, I have come to believe more in good mathematics than in important mathematics, but one could perhaps attribute that to sour grapes... | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 8:49 | comment | added | Amin | Fist of all, it's easy to understand simple example at grad level (at least a decent grad level) : it's $C*-algebra theory for example, or even easier, it's algebraic geometry. Both are foundations and motivate NCG. Second, as for the contribution to existing maths of purely NCG theory, I'm not a specialist at all, but if I remember well what Connes said at a talk (but I didn't get much of it honestly), one achievement would be to prove Riemann's hypothesis in terms of the NCG analog model of the Weil proof of Riemann's hypothesis. | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 8:46 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I think Alain Valette's answer to your Q2 is a very good example. As for Q1, I have found that some combination of "there is some beautiful mathematics here" and "there might be a better chance of getting a grant or a postdoc if you do this, than if you do something idiotic like the cohomology of Banach algebras", quite forceful. | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 8:41 | answer | added | Alain Valette | timeline score: 30 | |
| Feb 11, 2012 at 7:58 | history | asked | Ehsan M. Kermani | CC BY-SA 3.0 |