Timeline for answer to What are some correct results discovered with incorrect (or no) proofs? by Andrey Rekalo
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 25, 2022 at 8:06 | comment | added | Z. M | @SamHopkins Here is a way to read it: Riemann's result is existence, and the given function is an incorrect proof. | |
| Jul 25, 2022 at 4:25 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http -> https (the question was bumped anyway)
|
| Jul 25, 2022 at 4:19 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins♦ | I'm confused by this answer, isn't this an incorrect result of Riemann's (namely, the claim that that function is nowhere differentiable). | |
| Jul 24, 2022 at 10:12 | history | edited | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
broken link fixed, cf. https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/34713/228959
|
| Apr 4, 2011 at 13:24 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki | ||
| Apr 3, 2011 at 20:21 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | To this,I'll only add that nearly 40 years before Weirstrass,remember that Bolzano had given a constructive procedure for creating such a function and most mathematicians had dismissed the idea outright as nonsense. | |
| Nov 14, 2010 at 14:18 | history | answered | Andrey Rekalo | CC BY-SA 2.5 |