Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Poincaré Conjecture Verified

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-16 19:49

This is very very big news in mathematics.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/news/2003-04-15/poincare/

Thoughts? If you haven't heard of the conjecture, it is actually quite easy to understand. It relates to topology, so read an intro guide on that, and then have a read of the question on the Clay Math site.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-16 19:56

I thought this happened a few months ago. Nevertheless, this is awesome.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-16 20:02

A much more recent news, and a much bigger one as far as I'm concerned, is that the Hodge and Tate conjectures seem to have been proven false. That's going to make a huge fuss at ICM.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-16 20:03

>>2


It probably did. But I was alerted to it by an article in the paper. Very hard to hear news about mathematics unless there is some 'twist' to it - even for this story it was only mentioned because the one who proved it is a recluse or something

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-16 20:04

>>3


Link?!

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-16 20:07

>>5
The paper claiming to disprove the conjectures is here:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math.AG/0608265
According to some knowledgeable friends, it looks correct.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-16 22:16

American mathematicians SUCK.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-17 9:00

>>7
A well-informed opinion based on solid facts, I presume?

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-17 9:39

This reminds me, is it just me, or are a lot of the papers posted to arxiv complete bullshit?

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-17 12:49

I wouldn't say ``a lot''--a fair amount is complete bullshit, but for any mathematically proficient person, they are relatively easy to spot. Most articles posted to ArXiV are serious research papers, and the aforementioned paper is certainly one. Which is not to say it is faultless of course.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-17 15:30

I thought sponsorship was supposed to fiter the bullshit

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-18 0:38

>>8
Well name one famous american mathematician. good luck lol.

and john nash isn' famous.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-18 2:48

Sternberg? He's famous in my circles anyway.

Although I can't think of anyone. Wiles?

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-18 2:51

>>12
Wolfram? Thurston? Conway? Lorenz? Wiener? If you mean "famous among mathematicians" than any of these names should suffice. If you mean "famous to the general public," you're kidding yourself as there are no (living) famous mathematicians. (The possible exception being Nash, but he's famous because there was a movie made about his struggle with schizophrenia, not because he is a mathematician.)

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-18 3:09

>>12

Wiles.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-18 7:22

Euler is my fav...although he is swedish...but still eulers buckling equation is a godsend for engineering. Made 2nd year research project a breeze.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-18 10:52

Not to sound nitpicky but Wiles is a Briton, not an American, and Euler is a Swiss, not a Swede.

Anyway, 14 is right, there is no such thing as a "famous" working mathematician, American or otherwise. Contemporary mathematics as a whole is completely unknown to the genereal public.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-18 14:50

>>17
I wouldn't be so sure. One time I went drinking straight after lectures and I asked this girl about the fuzzy torus, and she was like "haha, [p,q]=iQ^{ij}". I was so awed I didn't have time ask her for marriage before she left. I think these 'normal' people know much more than they let on.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-18 14:53

Well she didn't say "[p,q]=iQ^{ij}", what she said was "the lie bracket of incompatible operators on a fuzzy forus is eye times the a two-form". Just clearing things up

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-18 20:23

Yeah, I tried pick-up lines like "Consider the category of mixed rational Hodge structures..." on some girls too! Not sure they belong to the "general public", though.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List