Comments for F_un mathematics

Comment on Andre Weil on the Riemann hypothesis by lievenlb

lievenlb — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:26:13 +0000

@chandan, @georges : it took me a bit to figure out what's going on, but i discovered the MathOverflow topic and answer now... and read through the comments

I thank Ed Dean for linking to the Fun-post, Chandan for correcting the misspellings and Georges for the kind words. I agree with Georges that a cut© of a blogpost-quoted text does not require a link to that post (though it is always much appreciated). It is rewarding to see these old posts getting a second chance...

I wish you all a lot of mathematical (and other) fun in 2011 :: lieven.

Comment on Andre Weil on the Riemann hypothesis by Georges Elencwajg

Georges Elencwajg — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:58:18 +0000

aprÃ¨s quâ€™on eu perdu --> aprÃ¨s qu'on eut perdu.

Let no one add a circumflex on the "u" of "eut": "aprÃ¨s que" is followed by the indicative, not the conjunctive. The conjunctive IS often used nowadays, though. Probably because of a false analogy with "avant que", which is indeed followed by the conjunctive. The classical rule follows the flawless logic that the past is certain but not the future (maybe medieval grammarians knew quantum mechanics ?)

Happy New Year to you, Lieven, and to all those who have the good taste to read your blog.

Comment on Andre Weil on the Riemann hypothesis by Chandan Singh Dalawat

Chandan Singh Dalawat — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 09:09:04 +0000

gausienne –> gaussienne, nus –> nous

Comment on Anyone interested? by Koen Thas

Koen Thas — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:38:26 +0000

Hi Lieven,

I am.

Comment on Anyone interested? by Carmine Napolitano

Carmine Napolitano — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:16:39 +0000

I liked your posts – when you had time to do them:) You should check out http://www.equalis.com. It just went beta today – you may be able to find some like-minded souls there. First end-to-end on-line community for math: forums, interest groups, blogs, jobs, open source software, and more.

Comment on Anyone interested? by lievenlb

lievenlb — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:15:26 +0000

Well, thanks, but actually I didnt want to ask whether people are interested in a Borger-F1-series of posts (i assume lots of people are) or reasons why there are only 60odd daily hits (in fact i'm surprised someone comes here at all when the site is dead for ages).

The actual question I wanted to ask (and I made a small edit to the post) is whether anyone is interested in reviving the intended group-blog idea of this site, in other words, willing to contribute posts on F1-stuff.

If not, I can always post on my own blog, and will do so.

Comment on Anyone interested? by Markus

Markus — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:05:48 +0000

Yes, I am.

Comment on Anyone interested? by Maurizio Monge

Maurizio Monge — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:01:06 +0000

Yes, thanks, a lot! I would probably not be experienced enough to make interesting developments, but i would surely read everything with great interest.

By the way, i'm keeping track of updates using the RSS feed, so I (and possibly many others) probably do not count as periodic "site access".

Comment on Anyone interested? by Thomas

Thomas — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:48:52 +0000

I would find that interesting. Others probably too, e.g. F_1 is a theme in mathoverflow. Lack of visitors of this site could come from a use of preview-like functions on other sites, e.g. motivic stuff. Best, Thomas

Comment on The F_un folklore by The Analogical Engine » Blog Archive » Another Nice Analogy - A math and haskell blog

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:38:18 +0000

[...] The field with one element [...]