<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Kakeya problem in finite fields</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ilaba.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/the-kakeya-problem-in-finite-fields/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ilaba.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/the-kakeya-problem-in-finite-fields/</link>
	<description>Because "exact science is not always exact science."</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:11:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Plans and Updates &#171; Combinatorics and more</title>
		<link>http://ilaba.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/the-kakeya-problem-in-finite-fields/#comment-208</link>
		<dc:creator>Plans and Updates &#171; Combinatorics and more</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:57:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ilaba.wordpress.com/?p=59#comment-208</guid>
		<description>[...] Does it support the view that the finite case is not related to the continuous case? (Both Tao and Laba discuss these [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Does it support the view that the finite case is not related to the continuous case? (Both Tao and Laba discuss these [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Izabella Laba</title>
		<link>http://ilaba.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/the-kakeya-problem-in-finite-fields/#comment-121</link>
		<dc:creator>Izabella Laba</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:14:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ilaba.wordpress.com/?p=59#comment-121</guid>
		<description>Anonymous aka Snarky Snark:

I was under the impression that the results of Schwartz and Zippel go a little bit beyond the fundamental theorem of algebra.  Otherwise they wouldn&#039;t have been published as research papers not so long ago, would they?  And no, not everybody has to be familiar with them.

If those results do get carefully reexamined, then what would be wrong with that?  That&#039;s what should happen, as far as I&#039;m concerned.  In fact I&#039;d be reading those papers right now if I weren&#039;t sick. Because that&#039;s what many of us do when a big result in our area gets proved. We examine the proof, including the results that it relies on where possible - not just to check for correctness, but also to understand the argument better.  

A new application of an old theorem can put that theorem in a new light and lead to questions that wouldn&#039;t have been thought of otherwise. We will want to know how far the argument extends, or whether similar ideas can be used in other settings, and for that we will need to know how the Schwartz-Zippel theorem works.  Even if there turn out to be no such extensions, at least we will have learned something that we didn&#039;t know before.  Which is always a good thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anonymous aka Snarky Snark:</p>
<p>I was under the impression that the results of Schwartz and Zippel go a little bit beyond the fundamental theorem of algebra.  Otherwise they wouldn&#8217;t have been published as research papers not so long ago, would they?  And no, not everybody has to be familiar with them.</p>
<p>If those results do get carefully reexamined, then what would be wrong with that?  That&#8217;s what should happen, as far as I&#8217;m concerned.  In fact I&#8217;d be reading those papers right now if I weren&#8217;t sick. Because that&#8217;s what many of us do when a big result in our area gets proved. We examine the proof, including the results that it relies on where possible &#8211; not just to check for correctness, but also to understand the argument better.  </p>
<p>A new application of an old theorem can put that theorem in a new light and lead to questions that wouldn&#8217;t have been thought of otherwise. We will want to know how far the argument extends, or whether similar ideas can be used in other settings, and for that we will need to know how the Schwartz-Zippel theorem works.  Even if there turn out to be no such extensions, at least we will have learned something that we didn&#8217;t know before.  Which is always a good thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anonymous</title>
		<link>http://ilaba.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/the-kakeya-problem-in-finite-fields/#comment-120</link>
		<dc:creator>anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ilaba.wordpress.com/?p=59#comment-120</guid>
		<description>Are you familiar with the fundamental theorem of algebra? Do you think it might be carefully reexamined soon, too?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are you familiar with the fundamental theorem of algebra? Do you think it might be carefully reexamined soon, too?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Give the people (who like the Kakeya problem) what they want &#171; Quomodocumque</title>
		<link>http://ilaba.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/the-kakeya-problem-in-finite-fields/#comment-118</link>
		<dc:creator>Give the people (who like the Kakeya problem) what they want &#171; Quomodocumque</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:41:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ilaba.wordpress.com/?p=59#comment-118</guid>
		<description>[...] in every direction. Dvir proved that every Kakeya set has at least c_n q^n elements. (Hat tip to The Accidental Mathematician for alerting me to Dvir&#8217;s [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] in every direction. Dvir proved that every Kakeya set has at least c_n q^n elements. (Hat tip to The Accidental Mathematician for alerting me to Dvir&#8217;s [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dvir&#8217;s proof of the finite field Kakeya conjecture &#171; What&#8217;s new</title>
		<link>http://ilaba.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/the-kakeya-problem-in-finite-fields/#comment-112</link>
		<dc:creator>Dvir&#8217;s proof of the finite field Kakeya conjecture &#171; What&#8217;s new</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:53:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ilaba.wordpress.com/?p=59#comment-112</guid>
		<description>[...] Mar 25: See also these posts by Izabella Laba and Jordan [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Mar 25: See also these posts by Izabella Laba and Jordan [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
