bio | website | |
---|---|---|
location | Mumbai, India | |
age | ||
visits | member for | 2 years, 5 months |
seen | Oct 5 at 11:50 | |
stats | profile views | 193 |
1st year grad student at TIFR Mumbai.
Areas of interest: Number Theory, Discrete Mathematics.
Sep 24 |
awarded | Autobiographer |
May 17 |
awarded | Popular Question |
Feb 7 |
revised |
A lower bound on the number of matrices whose image contains all multiples of $p^e$
added 7 characters in body |
Feb 7 |
asked | A lower bound on the number of matrices whose image contains all multiples of $p^e$ |
Nov 4 |
comment |
Cohen-Lenstra Heuristics reference
Yes, but it is too technical for me, I am looking for some reference which explains it in a relatively simple manner. |
Nov 1 |
asked | Cohen-Lenstra Heuristics reference |
Oct 22 |
comment |
Euclidean real quadratic fields
@Gene S.Kopp: Thanks for the reference. By "single" I meant if the function has some general definition for all quadratic fields (eg. norm function), probably I should have used the word "similar". And I would be glad to know if there are some other work in this direction. |
Oct 18 |
comment |
Euclidean real quadratic fields
@Franz Lemmermeyer:So showing eulideanity would be harder than showing uiqueness of factorization? I also thought that but wasn't so sure. So is this approach (showing euclideanity) of finding a large number of UFD's completely hopeless? |
Oct 17 |
awarded | Yearling |
Oct 17 |
asked | Euclidean real quadratic fields |
May 18 |
comment |
Questions about the proof of Stickelberger's theorem on discriminants
Can you please tell how do you prove your first and second claim ? |
May 18 |
revised |
Questions about the proof of Stickelberger's theorem on discriminants
added 69 characters in body |
May 18 |
asked | Questions about the proof of Stickelberger's theorem on discriminants |
Jan 22 |
comment |
Self complementary cartesian products
@Chris godsil: Yes, thats why I said without computing the complement, may be using some arguments on the degrees of verices and using the fact that it is a cartesian product; and this is not a homework. |
Jan 21 |
asked | Self complementary cartesian products |
Oct 4 |
accepted | Why is the physical space equivalent to $\mathbb{R}^3$ |
Oct 3 |
asked | Getting a bound on the coefficients of the factor polynomial |
Aug 30 |
awarded | Commentator |
Aug 30 |
comment |
Why is the physical space equivalent to $\mathbb{R}^3$
Isn't the topological structure inherited from its algebraic structure, I mean the metric on $\mathbb{R}$ is $|a-b|$ which is defined according to its algebraic structure |
Aug 30 |
comment |
Why is the physical space equivalent to $\mathbb{R}^3$
@Mariano: But mathematicians also use this fact quite often, to represent real numbers we intuitively assume they are lying on a straight line (say, drawn on a piece of paper). |