Timeline for Most interesting mathematics mistake?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2021 at 15:32 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http -> https (the question was bumped anyway)
|
| Jan 25, 2020 at 6:03 | comment | added | Taladris | Ken Perko is doing maths again: researchgate.net/profile/Ken_Perko | |
| Dec 12, 2018 at 16:07 | comment | added | Akiva Weinberger | @DanielMoskovich Could you take a look at this question? math.stackexchange.com/questions/3036870/… | |
| Mar 26, 2018 at 12:51 | history | edited | jeq | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Copied image to imgur.com, as it was not being displayed because of the new https rule. Added link to original image source.
|
| Feb 6, 2016 at 12:55 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @მამუკაჯიბლაძე FTFY (meaning: "Fixed that for you" -- for civilians like myself -- Todd Trimble). | |
| Feb 6, 2016 at 12:55 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Put back the correct image of the Perko pair from Elwes' blog
|
| Nov 8, 2015 at 7:53 | comment | added | Danu | This answer is in need of some editing. The proposed edit by Perko should definitely be included, and the picture of the Perko pair should be restored. | |
| Sep 29, 2015 at 17:09 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | Image for the real Perko pair is gone :( | |
| Sep 29, 2015 at 13:15 | history | edited | Jim Conant | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed spelling of Thistlethwaite
|
| Nov 23, 2013 at 5:08 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | (Perko's comment continues...) FOR CONWAY, KNOT THEORY WAS A HIGH SCHOOL HOBBY AND HIS CHECKING AND EXTENSION OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY TABLES "AN AFTERNOON'S WORK." He just didn't look very closely at the 10-crossing knots. | |
| Nov 23, 2013 at 5:07 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | Ken Perko attempted to make another edit, by adding the following to the citation of Conway's paper: CONWAY WAS NOT MISLED BY THIS FALSE THEOREM OF C.N.LITTLE. HE FOUND THREE COUNTEREXAMPLES AMONG HIS 11-CROSSING NON-ALTERNATING KNOTS AND CORRECTLY WEEDED OUT THE DUPLICATE KNOT TYPES. Cf. Hoste-Thistlethwaite-Weeks, The first 1,701,936 knots, Math. Intelligencer 20 (1998) FOOTNOTE 8 and Jablan-Radovic-Saxdanovic, Adequacy of link fanilies, Publictiones de L'Institute Mathematique, Nouvelle Serie, Tome 88(102) (2010), 21-52. | |
| Nov 23, 2013 at 4:40 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Nov 23, 2013 at 5:02 | |||||
| Nov 7, 2013 at 21:45 | comment | added | Michael | +1 for the update that shows that there was a mistake wrapped in a mistake hidden in a mistake. :) | |
| Nov 7, 2013 at 14:59 | comment | added | Daniel Moskovich | Ryan- you were right. See the update! | |
| Nov 7, 2013 at 14:58 | history | edited | Daniel Moskovich | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Substantial update
|
| Dec 16, 2009 at 11:01 | comment | added | Daniel Moskovich | Yes- Conway assumed they were different in his table as well, but had no invariant to prove it. I don't know of any miscalculated invariant which "showed" they were different. | |
| Dec 16, 2009 at 7:56 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | Did Conway assume they were different as well, or did the mistake persist for other reasons, like an error in computing an invariant? | |
| Dec 16, 2009 at 7:22 | comment | added | Daniel Moskovich | Little (with Tait and Kirkman) compiled his tables combinatorially. He drew all possible 4-valent graphs with some number of vertices (in this case 10), and resolved 4-valent vertices into crossings in all possible ways. He ended up with 2<sup>10</sup> knots. Then he worked BY HAND to eliminate doubles, by making physical models with string. He failed to bring these two knots to the same position, and concluded that they must be different. It took almost 100 years to find the ambient isotopy which shows that there are the same knot, but the quest to show they are different was fruitful. | |
| Dec 16, 2009 at 3:06 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | That's a nice mistake. Do you know how it started -- presumably at some point the knots were separated by a flawed computation of some invariant? | |
| Dec 16, 2009 at 1:36 | history | answered | Daniel Moskovich | CC BY-SA 2.5 |