Timeline for Have mathematicians concluded that an Indian mathematical physicist has solved the Riemann Hypothesis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 12, 2021 at 20:28 | comment | added | paul garrett | @BrianB, indeed, that's the current unmathematizable physics stunt. :) I've spent a lot of (fruitful) effort over the last few decades understanding mathematics sufficient to "rigorize" Heaviside's and Dirac's and ... physics. L. Schwartz helped a lot, as did A. Grothendieck's early work, but I think that this is still not strongly assimilated into "standard mathematics"... thus, leaving us with a very flimsy notion of "calculus/analysis", sadly/amazingly. :) | |
| Jul 5, 2021 at 6:17 | comment | added | Moishe Kohan | @PerAlexandersson: Sadly, Narkiewicz's irony, while clear to any mathematician, will be lost when read by a casual reader, including members of the committee. | |
| Jul 3, 2021 at 6:22 | comment | added | Per Alexandersson | "... want you to know that I enjoyed our discussion which showed that the notion of a proof may have different interpretations". Ouch, Wladyslaw is not holding back! He's basically saying that Eswaran does not even know what constitutes a mathematical proof.... | |
| Jul 2, 2021 at 16:51 | comment | added | Brian B | "the marvelous mathematical ideas that have been generated by physics and physicists" Some of us are still annoyed that "renormalization" works so damn well in field theory. | |
| Jul 2, 2021 at 16:49 | comment | added | Brian B | @DonThousand Insisting that existing mathematicians have it wrong is one of the common behaviors identified in Underwood Dudley's marvelous and funny book Mathematical Cranks. The book is enjoyable by the way, and not for snark. Dudley clearly has sympathy for these folks. | |
| Jul 2, 2021 at 13:24 | comment | added | user1271772 | @DonThousand could you clarify your comment a bit please? | |
| Jul 1, 2021 at 19:12 | comment | added | paul garrett | @DonThousand, indeed, not a good sign... :) | |
| Jul 1, 2021 at 19:06 | comment | added | Rushabh Mehta | @paulgarrett After checking out the professor's interactions with Dr. Narkiewicz, in particular, his fallcious understanding of probability spaces, I'm deeply concerned by his insistence that the work of others, who properly apply notions of probability theory, are "definitely wrong". | |
| Jun 30, 2021 at 23:12 | comment | added | paul garrett | @Avery, thanks! | |
| Jun 30, 2021 at 23:11 | comment | added | Avery | Here is a direct link sreenidhi.edu.in/pdffls/… | |
| Jun 30, 2021 at 23:10 | comment | added | paul garrett | @Avery, do you have link to Narkiewicz' remarks? I know Narkiewicz' works quite well. A serious mathematician. I do not know him personally. | |
| Jun 30, 2021 at 22:50 | comment | added | Avery | You should check out the correspondence between the physicist and Prof. Wladislaw Narkiewicz. Prof. Narkiewicz is very polite but his final email conceals some extremely dry humor about why he kept up the correspondence. | |
| Jun 30, 2021 at 22:27 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 1, 2021 at 4:47 | |||||
| Jun 30, 2021 at 22:27 | history | answered | paul garrett | CC BY-SA 4.0 |