Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorsisn
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2011
    Does anyone know a good timeline of mathematics?
    Is this question acceptable? Maybe as a community wiki, so that a common ground on what should/should not be in a timeline can be found.
    This question is much inspired by the timeline of mathematics on wikipedia
    which I think is well pretty lets call it "special".
    No mention of Poincare (or topology), no mention of MacLane/Eilenberg or Cathegories and no mention of Grothendieck at all.
    Curiously it mentiones Connes NCG (which I think of course belongs, but without mentioning Grothendieck it is pretty strange.)
    Insteed it has two entries about Lotfi Zadeh's Fuzzy Sts/Fuzzy Logic (Which might be important- I don't know the first thing about it, but surely not more important than Poincare's Topology or Grothendieck remake of the AG Foundations.)-
    So in short I wondered weather It's possible to find an agreed minimal list which should constitute a timeline of mathematics.
    Do you think that this question is appropriate for mathoverflow?
    • CommentAuthorWill Jagy
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2011
    It comes under the heading of subjective and argumentative. If you are unhappy with the wikipedia timeline you may register there and put in a few edits yourself.
    • CommentAuthorsisn
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2011
    Yeah I figured that- that's why I asked first,
    Yeah I know that I could change the wikpedia timeline, but the idea of the question was more to find a "minimal list" agreed by a number of mathematicans
    (because I surely won't dare to claim to know what belongs /does not belong to a timeline of mathematics, just that the one given on wikipedia feels very inadequate
    I also think it's best to contribute to the Wikipedia article rather than post such a thread on MO. If you'd like to draw attention to the Wikipedia article, you could add a comment to that effect at the Wikiproject Mathematics webpage:

    You could also blog about the topic.
    • CommentAuthorsisn
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2011
    Thanks for your suggestion-
    I think I will write a blog post about this topic in the next days.
    And maybe change the wikipedia article a bit, after that. Thanks!
    Usually when changing a Wikipedia article, you put your suggestions on the "discussion" page first, and wait for feedback. If there's no objections after a while (a highly-frequented article will get comments within a day, less frequented articles may take weeks) then it's fine to start editing.

    You may also want to look at the revision history of the article. If there are only a few contributors, you can leave comments on their user-page, directing their attention to your comments on the discussion page.
    • CommentAuthorsisn
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2011
    yeah I did that- (but only after I read the etiquette section- by that time I had already added Eilenberg-MacLane-Axioms, Eilenberg-Steenrod-Axioms, and GRR).
    I wrote a comment proposing some changes, and will check back on any feedback in a week or two... (by that time I hope to have worked out a blogpost on this)
    Thanks for your help.