Timeline for answer to Most intricate and most beautiful structures in mathematics by Steven Landsburg
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
Post Revisions
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 27, 2013 at 15:26 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | I don't know; this answer seems a little too cheap and easy somehow. (Deane Yang responded to a deleted answer on the Mandelbrot set, "My objection to an answer like this is that no reasoning is given for the conclusion." The same objection could be made here; it's almost reminds me of an MC saying, "our next awardee is so well-known he needs no introduction".) In summary, the problem with this answer is that I learned absolutely nothing from it, and indeed I can't imagine anyone learning anything whatsoever from it. So, -1. | |
| Dec 19, 2010 at 17:21 | comment | added | Zsbán Ambrus | Why the empty set in particular? The empty set is constructed from nothing at all on day zero. How's it more special than any of the other sets you construct later on the path to natural numbers? | |
| Dec 18, 2010 at 0:50 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | Steven, This is certainly an answer from the book, and probably a nice feeling to nominate the natural numbers... | |
| Dec 17, 2010 at 12:42 | comment | added | Peter Arndt | Also the two most common categorifications belong here, imho: The cat of finite sets and its groupoid coreflection, connecting to combinatorial species, stable homotopy groups of spheres etc... | |
| Dec 14, 2010 at 12:09 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | @Pete: Do you need a glass of water for that cough? | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 22:15 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | [deleted some comments of mine which on reflection made more heat than light] | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 22:14 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | To try and put across my objection to this answer with a metaphor: is sand intricate because we can make stained glass? | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 19:51 | comment | added | Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris | The natural numbers are the most intricate because anybody can make any statement, however simple, that will take centuries, even millenia to prove. And once THAT particular statement does get proved, the 'intricacy' also becomes 'beauty'. C'mon guys! Mathematics is about simplifying complexities, not the other way around... :-) | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 8:21 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Yemon: Interesting <cough> argument. The issue seems a bit <cough> subjective though... | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 5:27 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | While the empty set may be a profound notion, how is it an intricate object? | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 0:14 | comment | added | Dirk | Oh, already closed... I just wanted to add the empty set, because even the natural numbers can be constructed from here... | |
| Dec 12, 2010 at 18:57 | comment | added | Donu Arapura | Yes, I think this the answer. | |
| Dec 12, 2010 at 18:52 | comment | added | J.C. Ottem | On the other hand, the natural numbers might not be the most intricate object in mathematics.. | |
| Dec 12, 2010 at 18:45 | comment | added | Pietro Majer | +1: how not to agree! (But then I'd be tempted to say: the empty set! We can describe all natural numbers by simple operations on it, via the von Neumann's ordinal construction) | |
| Dec 12, 2010 at 18:03 | history | answered | Steven Landsburg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |