Timeline for Rigour leading to insight
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:57 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/ with https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Nov 16, 2010 at 15:55 | answer | added | Gil Kalai | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 4, 2010 at 19:00 | vote | accept | András Salamon | ||
| Oct 13, 2010 at 16:34 | answer | added | Ryan Williams | timeline score: 12 | |
| Oct 13, 2010 at 13:26 | answer | added | Dana Moshkovitz | timeline score: 27 | |
| Oct 13, 2010 at 9:43 | history | edited | András Salamon | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
clarify
|
| Oct 13, 2010 at 5:53 | history | edited | András Salamon |
add tag
|
|
| Oct 13, 2010 at 4:19 | history | edited | András Salamon | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
clarify in light of comments
|
| Oct 13, 2010 at 3:49 | answer | added | Suresh Venkat | timeline score: 20 | |
| Oct 13, 2010 at 3:05 | answer | added | Scott Aaronson | timeline score: 35 | |
| Oct 13, 2010 at 3:01 | comment | added | Aaron Sterling | Hmm... What about starting with specific algorithms and then using them as data points to generalize? Such as, people design a few greedy algorithms, and eventually the field develops a notion of a problem with optimal substructure. | |
| Oct 13, 2010 at 2:30 | answer | added | matus | timeline score: 13 | |
| Oct 12, 2010 at 19:05 | comment | added | Kaveh | [continued] E.g. in the LLL case, we had nonconstructive proofs for LLL (S), but the new constructive proof arXive (P) gives us a new insight (I). | |
| Oct 12, 2010 at 19:00 | comment | added | Kaveh | Just to make sure I understood your question, are you asking for a triple (statement S, proof P, insight I), where the statement S is known/believed to be true, but we obtain a new insight (I) when someone come up with the new proof P for S? | |
| Oct 12, 2010 at 18:16 | comment | added | user1338 | What exactly is meant by "underlying problem?" Do you mean to suggest only problems where there is a deeper problem than a particular statement? I had been thinking of any problem that involves the constructive proof of the existence of an algorithm (e.g., the AKS primality test to establish that PRIMES is in P) would lead to "new insight" via rigorous proof, but if you are talking only about smaller statements within a problem, that wouldn't make sense. | |
| Oct 12, 2010 at 17:46 | answer | added | Mohammad Al-Turkistany | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 12, 2010 at 17:21 | comment | added | Dave Clarke | Don't we see/do this every day? | |
| Oct 12, 2010 at 16:54 | answer | added | Jeffε | timeline score: 11 | |
| Oct 12, 2010 at 16:16 | history | asked | András Salamon | CC BY-SA 2.5 |