Speaking of Emmanuel Kowalski

How can I have forgotten to put his blog on my blogroll?  Well, it’s up there now — a great place for thoughtful posts on number theory both contemporary and historical, not to mention engaging diversions on mysterious symbols on slide rules and the important question of whether Grothendieck appears in the movie of Zazie dans le métro.

In Emmanuel’s most recent post, he reports on something I too should have mentioned; that the beautiful result of Bilu and Parent about rational points of X^split(p), whose original version fell prey to a subtle error, has apparently been corrected, and the original result is now once again independent of GRH.

Tagged , , , ,

2 thoughts on “Speaking of Emmanuel Kowalski

  1. According to Tate:
    “No – It’s not Grothendieck. It’s not Yul Brenner either. It’s just some guy who shaves his head.”

  2. That seems to be a very definitive answer and an end to that (admittedly little known…) myth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 426 other followers

%d bloggers like this: