Timeline for Is there a high-concept explanation for why characteristic 2 is special?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Aug 5, 2018 at 0:26 | history | suggested | Mike Pierce | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Mathjaxxed, since it's a popular post. I'll also Mathjax the answers, so this thread is only bumped once for this reason
|
| Aug 5, 2018 at 0:03 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 5, 2018 at 0:26 | |||||
| Oct 18, 2009 at 1:31 | comment | added | Kevin H. Lin | I wouldn't think that mathematicians study additive inverses because we like them. Rather it's because that's what nature often gives us. | |
| Oct 17, 2009 at 21:35 | history | edited | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 290 characters in body
|
| Oct 17, 2009 at 20:57 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Yes, that's more or less what I was trying to say in my parenthetical comment. But I can't decide whether this is deep or whether it's just because historically mathematicians happen to like additive inverses. | |
| Oct 17, 2009 at 20:39 | history | answered | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |