20,251 reputation
480145
bio website
location
age
visits member for 4 years, 10 months
seen 20 hours ago

20h
comment Conjecture regarding closest point inside a discrete ball to a line
You mean "fleshed out," not "flushed out."
Nov
17
comment Are there non-reflexive abelian topological groups isomorphic to their second dual?
@paulgarrett: In the 3+ years since you made your comment above, did you ever find a reference to an example of such a Banach space?
Nov
16
comment Sum of two squares and implication of Bunyakovsky conjecture
I think you are misapplying Bouniakowsky's conjecture. It says a nonconstant polynomial in ${\mathbf Z}[x]$ has prime values infinitely often unless the polynomial is reducible in $\mathbf Z[x]$ or all of its values are divisible by a common prime number, and that second condition is weaker than saying the polynomial has content 1. For example, $x^2+x+2$ is irreducible with content 1 but all of its values on $\mathbf Z$ are even.
Nov
16
revised Sum of two squares and implication of Bunyakovsky conjecture
deleted 5 characters in body
Nov
16
revised Sum of two squares and implication of Bunyakovsky conjecture
added 16 characters in body
Nov
15
revised Trivial Weil-Châtelet group
deleted 1 character in body
Nov
14
revised Two (other) rings…are they isomorphic?
added 1 character in body
Nov
12
comment Book about the history of mathematics for weather prediction
Those links are to descriptions of the book, one by the publisher and one by the authors. They are not book reviews in the usual sense.
Nov
12
revised Two rings…are they isomorphic?
deleted 1 character in body
Nov
12
comment Two rings…are they isomorphic?
Nick, out of curiosity, what was leading you to a different answer than what you expected?
Nov
7
comment CD - continuous development
The subject line ("CD - continuous development") could really be improved.
Nov
4
awarded  Guru
Oct
31
comment Determinant of a determinant
Another text reference for the theorem besides Bourbaki is Jacobson's Basic Algebra I (2nd ed.), Section 7.4. I don't have it in front of me, so I can't check if he uses induction. The paper by John Silvester that you link to has a proof by induction, which is not of direct interest to you, but what might be of interest is that in the last paragraph he mentions that he has seen an abstract version of the identity. Whatever the abstract version is might be the conceptual statement you seek (unless it's your corollary).
Oct
29
comment What are the “correct” conventions for defining Clifford algebras?
Have you asked Borcherds?
Oct
26
revised Counterexamples in Algebra?
added 276 characters in body
Oct
25
comment Who first noticed that Stirling numbers of the second kind count partitions?
Mathematical Reviews (the name for MathSciNet before it became a website) started in 1940, so it's not a surprise that anything from 1937 will predate (not just seem to predate) the written reviews you'll find on MathSciNet. It's also not a surprise that you'd like to avoid citing a journal on eugenics from the late 1930s.
Oct
23
comment How can I have a copy of this old paper by Frobenius?
Are you aware that the papers of Frobenius were gathered into his Collected Works in the late 1960s? It won't help with a translation, of course, but it means you can find all his papers bound together in these volumes in many university libraries.
Oct
19
comment Is the notation ${}^t g$ for the transpose of a linear transformation intended to be suggestive?
Frank, it's because the superscript is appearing on the left side, which looks wrong at first. At least this is the reasoning I made up when I first saw it. I never discussed it with anyone.
Oct
19
comment Is the notation ${}^t g$ for the transpose of a linear transformation intended to be suggestive?
I always regarded the placement of it to the left as a reminder that the transpose reverses the order of multiplication. Differential geometers write coordinates as $x^i$, so I never thought that it would be confused with an exponent when it's in the upper right (since the reader ought to know what the context is).
Oct
18
comment Number Theory over $\mathbb{F}_q [t]$, why is it important/interesting?
One way number theory in the function field case ($\mathbf F_q(t)$ and its finite extensions) can be applied back to more classical problems is in strong estimates on classical exponential sums. The best estimates are usually obtained from analogues of the Riemann hypothesis for zeta-functions or $L$-functions in function fields. By the way, in your question, the analogue of $\mathbf R$ in the function field case is not the rational function field $\mathbf F_q(t)$ but Laurent series fields such as $\mathbf F_q((t))$ and $\mathbf F_q((1/t))$.