User andrew homan - MathOverflowmost recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-25T02:15:08Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/user/96http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/50082/approximate-algorithms-for-poissons-equation-pde/55553#55553Answer by Andrew Homan for Approximate Algorithms for Poisson's Equation (PDE)Andrew Homan2011-02-15T21:22:16Z2011-02-15T21:22:16Z<p>You can modify the method <a href="http://www.everything2.com/title/Brownian+motion+solves+a+PDE?lastnode_id=124" rel="nofollow">described here</a> for the Laplace equation to work for Poisson.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/39866/are-local-noetherian-rings-with-principal-maximal-ideal-pirAre local, Noetherian rings with principal maximal ideal PIR?Andrew Homan2010-09-24T15:02:44Z2010-09-24T15:02:44Z
<p>A question asked by a friend. I believe it's false, but lack a decisive counterexample.</p>
<p><a href="http://mathoverflow.net/questions/36611/is-a-valuation-domain-pid-when-its-maximal-ideal-is-principal" rel="nofollow">This question</a> shows that it is true for valuation rings, but I know too little about them.</p>
<p>In the wider context, a solution to this problem would provide another proof that Artinian local rings whose maximal ideal is principal are principal ideal rings by shifting from Artinianness to Noetherianness instead of exploiting the nilpotence of the maximal ideal.</p>
<p>I'm tagging this commutative-rings because those are the only ones I really care about, but a noncommutative example would be just as decisive.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/16010/do-separable-and-normal-have-topological-meanings-for-fieldsDo separable and normal have topological meanings for fields?Andrew Homan2010-02-22T01:34:50Z2010-02-22T02:21:28Z
<p>The terminology would suggest that a separable field extension is so because the resulting field extension has some sort of separable topology, and that a normal extension corresponds to one with a normal topology.</p>
<p>I imagine this is true, or else they wouldn't have named them in such a way.</p>
<p>Also, I'm not sure what subfield this falls under, so if you could suggest additional tags, that would be great as well.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/8756/examples-of-algebraic-closures-of-finite-indexExamples of algebraic closures of finite indexAndrew Homan2009-12-13T14:33:03Z2010-01-07T14:57:19Z
<p>So there are easy examples for algebraic closures that have index two and infinite index: $\mathbb{C}$ over $\mathbb{R}$ and the algebraic numbers over $\mathbb{Q}$. What about the other indices?</p>
<p>EDIT: Of course $\overline{\mathbb{Q}} \neq \mathbb{C}$. I don't know what I was thinking.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71287/tanh-version-of-a-fourier-transformComment by Andrew HomanAndrew Homan2011-07-26T06:07:23Z2011-07-26T06:07:23ZYes. I don't have a reference for the inversion formula for the X-ray transform, but one should be able to follow the procedure for the Radon transform given here:
<a href="http://wwwmath.uni-muenster.de/num/inst/natterer/Preprints/2000/natterer/paper.pdf" rel="nofollow">wwwmath.uni-muenster.de/num/inst/natterer/…</a>http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71287/tanh-version-of-a-fourier-transformComment by Andrew HomanAndrew Homan2011-07-26T06:02:59Z2011-07-26T06:02:59ZIt looks like an attenuated (or weighted) X-ray transform.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/51913/pde-two-dimensional-inhomogeneous/51939#51939Comment by Andrew HomanAndrew Homan2011-01-13T22:31:51Z2011-01-13T22:31:51Z"No boundary conditions" is also a sort of boundary condition, as far as Green's functions are concerned. Typically these are the easiest situations to calculate Green's functions for.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/39866/are-local-noetherian-rings-with-principal-maximal-ideal-pirComment by Andrew HomanAndrew Homan2010-09-24T16:43:21Z2010-09-24T16:43:21ZOops. Well, I'm still a commutative algebra noob. Thanks for the references!http://mathoverflow.net/questions/16010/do-separable-and-normal-have-topological-meanings-for-fields/16015#16015Comment by Andrew HomanAndrew Homan2010-02-22T02:55:01Z2010-02-22T02:55:01ZSo there really is no connection. Hmph.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/16010/do-separable-and-normal-have-topological-meanings-for-fieldsComment by Andrew HomanAndrew Homan2010-02-22T02:53:47Z2010-02-22T02:53:47ZThen I misunderstood your comment. After reading it I thought there still was some connection, and mining the link for information came back with nothing, so I was still in a state of confusion.
Simply saying "This is incorrect." answers my question better.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/8756/examples-of-algebraic-closures-of-finite-index/8759#8759Comment by Andrew HomanAndrew Homan2009-12-13T22:08:19Z2009-12-13T22:08:19ZI wish I could upvote your original reference. I love digging up old German math articles.