bio | website | dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~sjw47 |
---|---|---|
location | Cambridge | |
age | 36 | |
visits | member for | 4 years, 10 months |
seen | yesterday | |
stats | profile views | 1,261 |
My main interest is in non-commutative algebra. At present that mostly means working with Iwasawa algebras and related rings.
Jul 22 |
reviewed | No Action Needed Approximation of bounded continuous functions by Lispschitz bounded functions |
Jul 22 |
comment |
Isomorphism of matrix ring over ore domain
That the maximal right ring of quotients of $Mat_n(R)$ is $Mat_n(q.f(R))$ (in your notation) follows immediately from Corollary 3.1.6 of McConnell and Robson's book `Noncommutative Noetherian rings': ams.org/bookstore-getitem/item=GSM-30 |
Jul 9 |
awarded | Pundit |
Jul 2 |
awarded | Curious |
Jun 19 |
comment |
About the construction of the Universal Enveloping Lie Algebroid
By the way you should probably see section 1.2.5 of math.harvard.edu/~gaitsgde/grad_2009/BB%20-%20Jantzen.pdf if you haven't already. |
Jun 19 |
answered | About the construction of the Universal Enveloping Lie Algebroid |
May 22 |
reviewed | No Action Needed Implications of non-negativity of coefficients of arbitrary Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials? |
Jan 27 |
accepted | Are admissible open subsets of an affinoid space of countable type? |
Jan 27 |
comment |
Are admissible open subsets of an affinoid space of countable type?
Ok. I see now. Thanks. |
Jan 24 |
comment |
Are admissible open subsets of an affinoid space of countable type?
I'm struggling to process this slightly. Do you have a reference for the first sentence? |
Jan 20 |
asked | Are admissible open subsets of an affinoid space of countable type? |
Dec 8 |
comment |
An invariant number of modules over Auslander Gorenstein modules
If my interpretation above is correct then I think you are asking about the quotient category $\mathcal{M}^\mu$ in the notation of that paper. |
Dec 8 |
comment |
An invariant number of modules over Auslander Gorenstein modules
I'm not completely sure what you are asking. Does being $\mu$-critical mean that $\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,R)\neq 0$ (ie canonical dimension $\mu$) but for every proper quotient $M/N$ of $M$, $\mathrm{Hom}_R(M/N,R)\neq 0$? In any case this paper math.washington.edu/~smith/Research/asz6.pdf of Ajitabh, Smith and Zhang is likely to be useful. |
Nov 18 |
comment |
When does the homological dimension of a tensor product equal the sum of dimensions?
A good reference for the above claim: degruyter.com/view/j/jgth.2000.3.issue-4/jgth.2000.034/… |
Oct 30 |
comment |
When to pick a basis?
If you can prove that (1) the trace of the identity map on $V$ is $\dim V$ (and this is an integer), (2) the trace of the zero map is $0$ and (3) trace is additive in the sense that if $T_1$ acts on $V_1$ and $T_2$ acts on $V_2$ then $\mathrm{tr} (T_1\oplus T_2)=\mathrm{tr} T_1+\mathrm{tr} T_2$ then what you ask for is straightforward since if $E$ is a projector on $V$ then it decomposes canonically as $I_{\ker E}\oplus 0_{\mathrm{Im} E}$. I would imagine that for any sensible definition of trace (1), (2) and (3) should be straightforward. |
Oct 24 |
comment |
Are all (possibly infinite dimensional) irreducible representations of a commutative algebra one-dimensional?
Quillen removed the cardinality assumption in ams.org/journals/proc/1969-021-01/S0002-9939-1969-0238892-4/…. |
Oct 14 |
awarded | Yearling |
Oct 13 |
awarded | Constituent |
Oct 1 |
awarded | Caucus |
Sep 19 |
comment |
$\mathbb{Z}G$ (left) Noetherian$\Rightarrow$ $l^1(G)$ is a flat $\mathbb{Z}G$-(right) module?
I'm not even sure that it is easy to extend my strategy to $G=\mathbb{Z}^n$ for $n>1$, although it may be easier than I think. Classifying right ideals in $\mathbb{C}G$ for $G$ a discrete Heisenberg group is probably hard. To get an idea why, see arxiv.org/abs/math/0102190. The first sentence of section 7 of your reference suggests that $Tor^1_{\mathbb{C}G}(\mathbb{C}G/f\mathbb{C}G,l^1(G))=0$ for all non-zero $f\in \mathbb{C}G$ whenever $G$ is torsionfree polycyclic. However, it isn't clear to me how hard this result was to prove already in that generality. |