Skip to main content
MathOverflow

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

13
  • 15
    $\begingroup$ My computer screen smells the same with this displayed as it usually does. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 10, 2010 at 19:24
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ That is indeed reassuring. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 10, 2010 at 19:25
  • $\begingroup$ Cam, a possibly easier question is whether the Baker-Heegner-Stark answer had to be less than or equal to the Schoof answer, once the former was known to be finite. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 10, 2010 at 19:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No, I take it back. Stark has a very accurate test for conjectures based on the first result being the most difficult proof in that area of mathematics. As the number 163 was surely known for both problems, an easy answer to my problem, or your original, gives an easy proof of Baker-Heegner-Stark, therefore there is no such easy relationship. The relationship is a coincidence. Quod Erat Demonstarkum. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 10, 2010 at 20:10
  • $\begingroup$ See if I can get Stark's test correct. Use apostrophe for negation, S for Baker-Heegner-Stark, C for some conjecture. If we have the implication S' --> C, then Stark believes C pending further investigation. Why, you ask? Worry not, I shall tell you. The contrapositive is C' --> S. If C actually turned out to be false, this would provide an easy proof of S $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 10, 2010 at 20:32