Aaron Tikuisis
|
Registered User
|
My research is on the structure of C*-algebras. I am currently a lecturer at the University of Aberdeen.
|
|
May 15 |
awarded | ● Organizer |
|
May 15 |
revised |
Inductive limit of mapping tori edited tags |
|
May 12 |
comment |
Inductive limit of mapping tori I'm very sorry - I totally read over the part about real numbers. But this means that you have 8 K-groups to try to use to show that the limits are non-isomorphic. Do your limits have the same K-theory? |
|
May 11 |
answered | Inductive limit of mapping tori |
|
May 10 |
accepted | Inductive limit of C*-algebras |
|
May 7 |
comment |
Sub-unital maps between C*-algebras: is there any relevant result? The sub-unital hypothesis is a simplifying assumption (a "WLOG" if you will), since any positive linear map can be rescaled to produce a sub-unital map. |
|
May 6 |
answered | Inductive limit of C*-algebras |
|
Mar 11 |
awarded | ● Yearling |
|
Feb 17 |
comment |
Subgroups of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ I might mention that, although I have some regrets about posting the question in this form (mainly that it makes me look bad), I wouldn't feel the same had I done the internet research and then asked simply about an algorithm. (I can only speculate that I wouldn't have found Smith Normal Form on my own in that circumstance.) Insofar as I got the answer I wanted, I am happy that I asked, though I suppose that people who sneak in questions from their math homework can often say the same. |
|
Feb 17 |
comment |
Subgroups of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ I was surprised to log in to MO to be told that I've earned a "Nice Question" badge. My reason for feeling, at the time of posting, that this question might be unreasonable is that I had thought seriously about it for a day or so, and it felt like the sort of question that is either nontrivial or could be solved in that amount of time. In retrospect, I really should have found the answer to my first question using Wikipedia. (Part of what mislead me was thinking that the special form of $G$ could be important - it isn't an arbitrary subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}^n$.) |
|
Feb 17 |
comment |
Subgroups of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ Please don't upvote this question anymore. |
|
Feb 17 |
awarded | ● Nice Question |
|
Feb 16 |
comment |
Subgroups of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ I hope my question didn't offend you Fernando. I was tentative about asking it, because I wasn't sure if it was research-level. Perhaps, sometimes you need to see the answer before you realize how easy a question is. Thank you for pointing out Smith Normal Form, since I didn't learn about it in my undergrad or graduate career |
|
Feb 16 |
asked | Subgroups of $\mathbb{Z}^n$ |
|
Feb 4 |
answered | General recipe for building C*-algebras out of combinatorial object |
|
Feb 3 |
comment |
Realizing universal C*-algebras as concrete C*-algebras Perhaps this is a way to view it, although I am unfamiliar with the Yoneda Lemma (and I'd be grateful if you elaborated). However, note that what's useful about the method I mentioned is that one needn't check that for *any* $C^\ast$-algebra $B$ with generators satisfying the given relations, there is a $\ast$-homomorphism $A \to B$ sending generators to respective generators. Rather, one only needs to check this when $B$ is irreducible. This is a consequence of the fact that, for any $C^\ast$-algebra, the kernels of all irreducible representations have trivial intersection. |
|
Feb 1 |
answered | Realizing universal C*-algebras as concrete C*-algebras |
|
Jan 12 |
awarded | ● Enlightened |
|
Jan 12 |
awarded | ● Nice Answer |
