Timeline for What about the question "does Grothendieck have any pseudonymous paper"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2014 at 8:30 | comment | added | Leo Alonso | With "some rule" I meant there are too many questions closed in this forum, but I know you were going to disagree anyway... In any case what the people is interested in, I think, is in Grothendieck's unpublished work. | |
| May 9, 2014 at 15:33 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | I also disagree. Also, I think the "some rule" comment is a little silly -- you can always manufacture a rule to explain any action. For example, Leo Alonso's comment could be motivated by the "celebrities are not people" rule, and so their intention to remain anonymous should not be respected. | |
| May 9, 2014 at 15:18 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | I disagree. Joël among others has given a good reason for why the question has problems, and it has nothing to do with "strict adherence to some rule". (As an aside, how widespread is this rumor, anyway? It looks a little tabloid-y to me, in the manner of the defunct Weekly World News.) | |
| May 9, 2014 at 15:10 | history | answered | Leo Alonso | CC BY-SA 3.0 |