Talk:List of theorems
|
|
Empty first sections make the "edit" links messy. Please do not touch this notice. Thanks.
| Contents |
TODO
I think it would be good to put some to dos here. Charles Matthews 11:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) Well - it's a start. A full list would run to several thousand, it seems. Charles Matthews 15:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Abel's theorem (Jacobian variety) - Artin approximation theorem - Ax-Kochen theorem
Banach-Mazur theorem - Bass-Heller-Swan theorem - Bertini's theorem - Blaschke selection theorem - Bloch's theorem - Bochner's theorem - Bombieri-Vinogradov theorem - Boone-Novikov theorem - Brauer-Hasse-Noether theorem
Cantor-Bendixson theorem - Cauchy-Kowalewski theorem - Chevalley-Warning theorem -Choquet's theorem - Closed subgroup theorem
Fredholm's theorem - Freiman's theorem -
Grothendieck's representation theorem -
Kodaira vanishing theorem - Kronecker-Weber theorem -
Laurent expansion theorem - Lefschetz hyperplane theorem
Malgrange preparation theorem - Max Noether's Fundamentalsatz - Mittag-Leffler theorem - Mergelyan theorem
Noether normalization theorem -
Vietoris-Begle mapping theorem -
Areas of knowledge
Shouldn't there be a restriction on which areas these theorems come from???
Maybe split into (list of theorems (insert area e.g maths/philosophy etc.)) Chrissmith 11:15, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
To take an analogous case: List of equations doesn't make that sort of distinction. It's a list of things labelled 'equation'. Usually it would be argued that if someone wants a more specialised list - say list of thermodynamic theorems - they should just go ahead. It doesn't matter so much; just better to avoid demarcation disputes. Would Noether's theorem be maths or physics? That's a reasonable test case: basically it's a bit of both.
Charles Matthews 11:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Genitive
I am not a native English speaker... What's the rule (if there is any) to use 's or not?. Thanks. Pfortuny 17:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Better without the 's, really - but in some cases it's so traditional ...
Charles Matthews 18:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
So perhaps it's best to create, say, Choquet's theorem first; and then move the page to Choquet theorem later.
Charles Matthews 08:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
List of mathematical theorems (?)
My oppinion is that is something may be called a theorem it is because it is in some way formalizable in a logico-mathematical system, and so is its proof. Hence, any thing which can be called a theorem is automaticallly "mathematical". So... I would understand a list of physical, economical, etc... but not mathematical. (I am including logic etc... in "mathematics"). However, this is disputable :D (And I do not want to spoil anyone's work).Pfortuny 10:10, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- OK, I've just read the introduction again and it appears that under that definition, there may be theorems which are not mathematical... This makes me shiver :) ... If we keep that introduction then it makes sense, but for my taste, "mathematical theorems" sounds a bit repetitive. However, let's keep it for a while and then keep it for good. It will be useful, surely. Pfortuny 10:15, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Suggestions regarding the indexing\list
I think each theorem should be added with the general issue or area to which it applies. Examples for styling this addition:
- Cantor-Bernstein-Schroeder theorem (Set Theory, Cardinal numbers)
- Binomial theorem (Combinatorics, Algebra)
MathKnight 21:06, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, OK: if you want to do the work. Mostly, lists are just lists (that is not true of list of algorithms, and you might argue that the needs here are similar). I now maintain 72 lists here - so I prefer simplicity ...
Charles Matthews 21:21, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I'll add some and I hope others will contribute as well. MathKnight 22:35, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I think the category\topic should be in italics in order to distinguish it from the theorem name. MathKnight 20:42, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
The style
is better than
Charles Matthews 07:14, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree. MathKnight 07:54, 20 May 2004 ( UTC)
So, I have finished adding some category to each theorem here. Charles Matthews 07:50, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)