Timeline for What prerequisites do I need to read the book Ricci Flow and the Poincare Conjecture, published by CMI
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 19, 2019 at 17:00 | comment | added | user142105 | We understood 99,99%. The book "Ricci Flow And The Poincare Conjecture" by Morgan and Tian contains some mistakes. Not critical, but the proof is 500 pages long. This can happen during the writing process. We fixed all mistakes we have found. This will save a lot of time for you: dropbox.com/s/73i5wz5390o1lx3/Final_Version_2.pdf?dl=0 Regards | |
| Oct 13, 2013 at 19:32 | answer | added | user41263 | timeline score: 7 | |
| Mar 1, 2012 at 8:59 | vote | accept | user18717 | ||
| Feb 29, 2012 at 8:15 | history | edited | Jonny Evans |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 29, 2012 at 8:13 | answer | added | Jonny Evans | timeline score: 15 | |
| Feb 29, 2012 at 6:08 | comment | added | user18717 | ToYemon Choi : I know something about topology... | |
| Feb 29, 2012 at 6:07 | comment | added | user18717 | To Ryan Budney: yeah.. the book I got is written by Morgan-Tan..But I'm only new to Topology, so cannot understand the proof now because I'm not familiar to some of the basic stuff...So I wonder with subject do I need to learn first? | |
| Feb 29, 2012 at 6:05 | comment | added | user18717 | To Jonny Evans: yes. I really intend to so. But on the other hand I want to learn the related subject systematically. I mean, when I run into, for example, '3-manifold', I google it and know it is a topological concept. Although I can understand this concept quickly by google or wiki, I still don't know the background of the concept and the idea behind it. So I think it is necessary to learn the related subject first... | |
| Feb 28, 2012 at 14:29 | comment | added | Sean Tilson | This should be retagged. | |
| Feb 28, 2012 at 11:04 | comment | added | Deane Yang | I endorse Jonny's suggestion. | |
| Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 | comment | added | Jonny Evans | Why not start reading and look up unfamiliar stuff when you come across it? I find that's a good way to read anything. Say they use Hamilton's maximum principle for tensors and you look up Hamilton's paper and are completely lost so you go back to some basic PDE book and learn about the maximum principle for scalars under parabolic flows. You learn something and eventually you get the feel for what's going on and can move on to the next perplexing point. This kind of reverse-engineering is a good way to decide what you need to learn. | |
| Feb 28, 2012 at 9:31 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | Also, there's a rather slender set of John Morgan's lecture notes from a lecture series he gave at Stanford. Authors are Morgan and Frederick Fong. IMO as far as pencil-sketch "warm up" type notes go, they seem to be some of the friendliest reading. This is in the University Lecture Series, Volume 53. | |
| Feb 28, 2012 at 9:29 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | What prior background do you have in this or related areas? | |
| Feb 28, 2012 at 9:28 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | I think there's 7 or more books on the topic now. There's Morgan-Tian. There's Topping. There's Chow (2 different books). There's Cao-XiPing. And there's Kleiner. Simon Brendle. Zhang. On and on. I've got a vague memory of a few others. I think different approaches demand different backgrounds. Some are more traditionally 3-manifolds-ish, some are more DG/PDE-ish in flavour. | |
| Feb 28, 2012 at 9:14 | history | asked | user18717 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |