Freddie Manners
|
Registered User
|
|
|
Apr 13 |
comment |
Is there a “right” proof of Riemann’s Theta Relation? @J. Martel: I have to confess I started to get a bit out of my algebraic depth with the later (adelic) stuff in Tata III, so haven't yet managed to get a working understanding of Thm 7.4, but will persevere. Possibly I should just try to figure out what that result is saying in the Euclidean case. @Jeff: That would be great! @Everyone: the equation for $x_1$ in Mumford looks like it must be a typo; corrected in the above. |
|
Apr 13 |
revised |
Is there a “right” proof of Riemann’s Theta Relation? added 12 characters in body |
|
Apr 12 |
asked | Is there a “right” proof of Riemann’s Theta Relation? |
|
Apr 9 |
comment |
Minimal size of subsets $A,B$ in a finite group $G$ such that $AB=G$ So, the strategy when A = H is a subgroup generalizes to A being your favorite set with $|A A^{-1}| = O(|A|)$, by a similar packing argument (if you accept a constant factor at the end). The aim is then to find such a set with $|A| \approx \sqrt{N}$. This gives rise to the cyclic example above, and should do what Colin Reid wants for nilpotent groups (see above). I don't know Whether you could use something like this to avoid the use of CFSG in the general case. |
|
Mar 22 |
awarded | ● Citizen Patrol |
|
Mar 22 |
awarded | ● Critic |
|
Mar 22 |
awarded | ● Commentator |
|
Mar 22 |
comment |
More expanders? My guess is that (1) and (2) are doomed not to expand because they are "too abelian", or "too nilpotent". So for (1), a set like $\{\pm g^{n} : 0 \le n \le N \}$ for $N$ large (but small compared to $p$) is likely to contradict expansion. Something similar should work in (2), considering a set of bounded length words on both your generators. I think this is closely related to [this MO question](mathoverflow.net/questions/91657/…). (3) has a very different flavour. It might be related to expansion in $SL_2$. |
|
Mar 21 |
comment |
Joint (close to uniform) distribution in finite fields I think that's right -- third edit lucky. I think the $L^2$ result should give $\varepsilon$ up to a (basically) constant factor like $k / (k - 1)$, meaning the $L^1$ result should go as $k \varepsilon$ times some constant factor; i.e. this hasn't made too much difference to the conclusion. |
|
Mar 21 |
revised |
Joint (close to uniform) distribution in finite fields deleted 48 characters in body |
|
Mar 21 |
revised |
Joint (close to uniform) distribution in finite fields added 192 characters in body |
|
Mar 21 |
comment |
Joint (close to uniform) distribution in finite fields Kevin -- thanks! You're absolutely right, and that means there's also an $\varepsilon^2$ that needs tracing through the argument. I'll fix this now and see what I get. |
|
Mar 21 |
revised |
Joint (close to uniform) distribution in finite fields typo |
|
Mar 21 |
answered | Joint (close to uniform) distribution in finite fields |
|
Mar 20 |
awarded | ● Yearling |
|
Jan 26 |
awarded | ● Teacher |
|
Jan 26 |
revised |
Question about the Hardy-Littlewood method (quite basic) added 7 characters in body; added 2 characters in body; edited body |
|
Jan 26 |
answered | Question about the Hardy-Littlewood method (quite basic) |
