Timeline for Grothendieck on topological vector spaces
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2014 at 12:47 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Dec 19, 2012 at 13:51 | comment | added | user9072 | I originally left this commen on the question but in seems better here. The mentioned article also contains: "For the whole year [1954] he [Grothendieck] tried without success to make headway on the problem of approximation in topological vector spaces, a problem that was resolved only some twenty years later[...]" I am not precisely sure about the timeline, but the statement to Malgrange might be after this failure. Or, he redecided it was not quite so dead in a short time. In any case, in view of this I would even give less weight to this statement. | |
| Mar 11, 2012 at 8:21 | comment | added | Charles Matthews | The framing of the issue matters. If TVS is taken to be a theory supporting rigorous quantum field theory, then pronouncing it dead is obviously premature. I was implicitly suggesting that the axiomatic approach, and consideration of the circle of ideas introduced by Laurent Schwartz, might reasonably explain the content of the statement. It doesn't mean, for example, that Fréchet algebras will never have a good theory. | |
| Mar 11, 2012 at 5:30 | comment | added | Uday | Thanks for the response. It is well known that Weil never liked Grothendieck's approach. Your answer only gives a reason why we should take Grothndieck's words with a grain of salt. It does not show that TVS is not actually dead. | |
| Mar 10, 2012 at 21:52 | history | answered | Charles Matthews | CC BY-SA 3.0 |