Does anyone know a good timeline of mathematics? Is this question acceptable? Maybe as a community wiki, so that a common ground on what should/should not be in a timeline can be found. This question is much inspired by the timeline of mathematics on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_mathematics which I think is well pretty lets call it "special". No mention of Poincare (or topology), no mention of MacLane/Eilenberg or Cathegories and no mention of Grothendieck at all. Curiously it mentiones Connes NCG (which I think of course belongs, but without mentioning Grothendieck it is pretty strange.) Insteed it has two entries about Lotfi Zadeh's Fuzzy Sts/Fuzzy Logic (Which might be important- I don't know the first thing about it, but surely not more important than Poincare's Topology or Grothendieck remake of the AG Foundations.)- So in short I wondered weather It's possible to find an agreed minimal list which should constitute a timeline of mathematics. Do you think that this question is appropriate for mathoverflow?
It comes under the heading of subjective and argumentative. If you are unhappy with the wikipedia timeline you may register there and put in a few edits yourself.
Yeah I figured that- that's why I asked first, Yeah I know that I could change the wikpedia timeline, but the idea of the question was more to find a "minimal list" agreed by a number of mathematicans (because I surely won't dare to claim to know what belongs /does not belong to a timeline of mathematics, just that the one given on wikipedia feels very inadequate
I also think it's best to contribute to the Wikipedia article rather than post such a thread on MO. If you'd like to draw attention to the Wikipedia article, you could add a comment to that effect at the Wikiproject Mathematics webpage:
Thanks for your suggestion- I think I will write a blog post about this topic in the next days. And maybe change the wikipedia article a bit, after that. Thanks! Simon
Usually when changing a Wikipedia article, you put your suggestions on the "discussion" page first, and wait for feedback. If there's no objections after a while (a highly-frequented article will get comments within a day, less frequented articles may take weeks) then it's fine to start editing.
You may also want to look at the revision history of the article. If there are only a few contributors, you can leave comments on their user-page, directing their attention to your comments on the discussion page.
yeah I did that- (but only after I read the etiquette section- by that time I had already added Eilenberg-MacLane-Axioms, Eilenberg-Steenrod-Axioms, and GRR). I wrote a comment proposing some changes, and will check back on any feedback in a week or two... (by that time I hope to have worked out a blogpost on this) Thanks for your help.