bio | website | |
---|---|---|
location | Salerno, Italy | |
age | 36 | |
visits | member for | 3 years, 3 months |
seen | 1 hour ago | |
stats | profile views | 742 |
Reasonably expert in Differential Geometry, I work mostly with jet bundles and their natural structures trying to exploit them in the areas of nonlinear PDEs and Calculus of Variations.
Jun 17 |
awarded | Good Question |
Jun 17 |
revised |
Why there is a relation among the second-order minors of a symmetric $4\times 4$ matrix?
Added a comment to Allen Knutson answer |
Jun 16 |
awarded | Self-Learner |
Jun 16 |
awarded | Yearling |
Jun 16 |
accepted | Why there is a relation among the second-order minors of a symmetric $4\times 4$ matrix? |
Jun 16 |
answered | Why there is a relation among the second-order minors of a symmetric $4\times 4$ matrix? |
Jun 13 |
awarded | Nice Question |
Jun 12 |
revised |
Why there is a relation among the second-order minors of a symmetric $4\times 4$ matrix?
Added a minor "footnote", added "symmetric" in the title |
Jun 12 |
comment |
Why there is a relation among the second-order minors of a symmetric $4\times 4$ matrix?
@Holonomia: I'm aware of Plucker relations, but I believe they're not related to "my" linear combination. For a simple reason: Plucker relations (whichever way you're suggesting to implement them) hold for any value of $n$ and $k$, whereas "my" relations begin to reveal themselves for $n\geq 4$ and only for special values of $k$, which also don't show any regularity... |
Jun 12 |
revised |
Why there is a relation among the second-order minors of a symmetric $4\times 4$ matrix?
Big edit of previous question "Is there any "space of $k^\textrm{th}$ order minors" of symmetric $n\times n$ matrices?" I made it more direct and easy to follow (I hope). |
Jun 12 |
revised |
Why there is a relation among the second-order minors of a symmetric $4\times 4$ matrix?
edited body |
Jun 12 |
asked | Why there is a relation among the second-order minors of a symmetric $4\times 4$ matrix? |
Mar 23 |
comment |
What is the “type” of a contact vector field?
I never doubted that type depended only on the conformal class of $\theta$. I wasn't sure it is invariant under the group of contact transformations. However, it is nice that you have such an "universal" sourcebook, and I'm going to have a look at it (I never read it from the beginning to the end, but I know it really contains a lot, so maybe I should do it!) |
Mar 23 |
revised |
What is the “type” of a contact vector field?
Explained that the type is a function of $p\in M$ |
Mar 23 |
comment |
What is the “type” of a contact vector field?
@DanieleZuddas: yes, $X^k(\theta)$ is the $k^\textrm{th}$ derivative, and yes the type is in fact a function of the point $p\in M$. |
Mar 23 |
revised |
What is the “type” of a contact vector field?
Added explanation of $X^k(\theta)$ |
Mar 23 |
asked | What is the “type” of a contact vector field? |
Mar 4 |
awarded | Yearling |
Oct 23 |
revised |
Extending derivations to the superposition closure
added 787 characters in body |
Oct 7 |
revised |
Extending derivations to the superposition closure
added 3 characters in body |