bio | website | |
---|---|---|
location | ||
age | ||
visits | member for | 3 years, 5 months |
seen | 1 hour ago | |
stats | profile views | 271 |
Jun 25 |
suggested | suggested edit on Checking whether modules are isomorphic, via a computer algebra software |
Jun 25 |
awarded | Yearling |
Jun 12 |
answered | What are some examples of mathematicians who had an unconventional education? |
May 29 |
comment |
Examples of (Phi,Gamma)-modules
This doesn't really answer your question, but this paper of Laurent Berger is in the right direction: perso.ens-lyon.fr/laurent.berger/articles/article04.pdf |
Jan 30 |
comment |
Research trends in geometry of numbers?
This is not new research in the geometry of numbers, but rather an application of classical results to another classical problem, that of determining primes of the form x^2+ny^2: tcnj.edu/~hagedorn/papers/… |
Jan 24 |
comment |
Digital Copy of Kato's Paper
@YangMills That answers my question. Thank you very much! |
Jan 24 |
comment |
Digital Copy of Kato's Paper
@Franz I'm not sure what you're implying with the "spamming" comment. I think this question is quite reasonable for MO, considering both the importance and scarcity of this paper. Scanning is not really an option since it is a borrowed book and I'm afraid that scanning would do considerable damage to the binding. @Serge Thanks, but I checked there and they don't have it. It's a hard paper to track down. |
Jan 24 |
asked | Digital Copy of Kato's Paper |
Jan 15 |
awarded | Critic |
Jul 30 |
revised |
Number Fields Arising from Newforms
added 130 characters in body |
Jul 30 |
accepted | Number Fields Arising from Newforms |
Jul 30 |
comment |
Number Fields Arising from Newforms
@Rob: Thank you! This is perfect. |
Jul 30 |
revised |
Number Fields Arising from Newforms
Paper was published in 1995, not 2007! |
Jul 30 |
comment |
Number Fields Arising from Newforms
@Kevin Buzzard: Oh! You're absolutely right -- I see on Darmon's website that it was indeed published in 1995. I guess the tex file was recompiled in 2007, leading to the date I cited from this version of the paper: www.math.mcgill.ca/darmon/pub/Articles/Expository/05.DDT/paper.pdf Thanks! |
Jul 30 |
awarded | Editor |
Jul 30 |
revised |
Number Fields Arising from Newforms
Changed "modular form" to "normalized eigenform". |
Jul 30 |
comment |
Number Fields Arising from Newforms
Hi Stopple, good point. It's a bad habit, but in my mind, when I say modular form I (almost) always mean "normalized eigenform", or even just "newform", but certainly the way I stated my question is incorrect. I'll fix my question to make it more precise. Thanks for pointing this out! |
Jul 30 |
asked | Number Fields Arising from Newforms |
Jun 29 |
answered | Computational number theory |
Jun 28 |
answered | Blackbox Theorems |