<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Art of Abstraction</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thebigquestions.com/2011/03/23/the-art-of-abstraction/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2011/03/23/the-art-of-abstraction/</link>
	<description>The Big Questions &#124; Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics, and Physics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:05:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Landsburg</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2011/03/23/the-art-of-abstraction/comment-page-1/#comment-25074</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Landsburg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:15:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=5796#comment-25074</guid>
		<description>gaddeswarup:

&lt;i&gt;I think that it was also Emmy Noether who pointed out to Alexanderoff and Hof that the numerical invariants of spaces that topologists were lookig at were actually the invariants of the homology groups of the corresponding chain complexes&lt;/i&gt;

I believe this also, and had a paragraph about it in the original blogpost, which I deleted because I couldn&#039;t figure out how to make it even marginally comprehensible to the non-mathematical reader (at least not without putting in more time than I had available).  But this one observation, all by itself, was more productive than most entire careers, though it was, like the physics work, tangential to the main body of Noether&#039;s work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>gaddeswarup:</p>
<p><i>I think that it was also Emmy Noether who pointed out to Alexanderoff and Hof that the numerical invariants of spaces that topologists were lookig at were actually the invariants of the homology groups of the corresponding chain complexes</i></p>
<p>I believe this also, and had a paragraph about it in the original blogpost, which I deleted because I couldn&#8217;t figure out how to make it even marginally comprehensible to the non-mathematical reader (at least not without putting in more time than I had available).  But this one observation, all by itself, was more productive than most entire careers, though it was, like the physics work, tangential to the main body of Noether&#8217;s work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gaddeswarup</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2011/03/23/the-art-of-abstraction/comment-page-1/#comment-25073</link>
		<dc:creator>gaddeswarup</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:49:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=5796#comment-25073</guid>
		<description>I think that it was also Emmy Noether who pointed out to Alexanderoff and Hof that the numerical invariants of spaces that topologists were lookig at were actually the invariants of the homology groups of the corresponding chain complexes. having said that I think that Galois influence was greater.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that it was also Emmy Noether who pointed out to Alexanderoff and Hof that the numerical invariants of spaces that topologists were lookig at were actually the invariants of the homology groups of the corresponding chain complexes. having said that I think that Galois influence was greater.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2011/03/23/the-art-of-abstraction/comment-page-1/#comment-25072</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:12:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=5796#comment-25072</guid>
		<description>Hear hear.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hear hear.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Babinich</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2011/03/23/the-art-of-abstraction/comment-page-1/#comment-25065</link>
		<dc:creator>Babinich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:02:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=5796#comment-25065</guid>
		<description>Steve,

Great post!

I believe that you&#039;ll find few have achieved so much because in that time at that time Emmy Noether was looked down upon by her male dominated profession.

In this regard she reminds me of Rosalind Franklin.

I believe it was in the John Derbyshire book &#039;Unknown Quantity&#039; where Einstein himself approaches Noether to get him out of a mathematical &quot;jam&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve,</p>
<p>Great post!</p>
<p>I believe that you&#8217;ll find few have achieved so much because in that time at that time Emmy Noether was looked down upon by her male dominated profession.</p>
<p>In this regard she reminds me of Rosalind Franklin.</p>
<p>I believe it was in the John Derbyshire book &#8216;Unknown Quantity&#8217; where Einstein himself approaches Noether to get him out of a mathematical &#8220;jam&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
