Timeline for What is Cantor's debt to Dedekind?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 hours ago | answer | added | Mikhail Katz | timeline score: 2 | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @Georg Essl: on my opinion, this Quanta publication needs a refutation, and this place is as good as any for this purpose. | |
| yesterday | history | became hot network question | |||
| yesterday | comment | added | Georg Essl | @AlexandreEremenko The question is if the reporting is "hype". That is asking about the discourse on that page, not about Cantor and Dedekind. If the question was: "What were the citation standards in 1870 mathematics in Germany regarding these details around Cantor and Dedekind", my view would be different. As it stands we are fact checking arbitrary web pages. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @Georg Essl: the question is about Cantor and Dedekind, so on my opinion it is within the scope of this cite. | |
| yesterday | answer | added | Alexandre Eremenko | timeline score: 7 | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Georg Essl | I read the paper as well and have the same general view as @AlexandreEremenko. In short letters of Dedekind have been found that add some detail to what was already known. There is substantial contemporary sensationalization in multiple places. Given that, in my view, the quality of exposition on Quanta is not on topic for HSM I voted to close. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | I read the paper. My opinion on Cantor and Dedekind did not change. But my opinion on Quanta Magazine changed dramatically: I lost all respect to them. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Mauricio | @MikhailKatz I agree that Quanta is sensationalist. Nevertheless the user should provide a more precise question, citing the article and asking for verification of specific points would be adequate for everybody. We should avoid users just dumping a document and asking "is is true"? | |
| S yesterday | history | suggested | J. W. Tanner |
Added relevant tags
|
|
| yesterday | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @Mauricio, you seem to be assuming that the article is accurate. It may well be; I have not read it. But Quanta Magazine is notorious for being sensationalist at times. Therefore your assumption is merely a hypothesis (possible a correct one!). That's what the OP is asking about. There could be other reasons to close this question but your objection does not seem to be one of them. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Mauricio | I vote for closing this question, what do you want that is not already in that article? | |
| 2 days ago | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S yesterday | |||||
| 2 days ago | history | asked | sand1 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |