bio | website | ucs.louisiana.edu/~avm1260 |
---|---|---|
location | Lafayette, LA, USA | |
age | 45 | |
visits | member for | 4 years, 7 months |
seen | 23 mins ago | |
stats | profile views | 2,948 |
With the move of MathOverflow into the SE network, this account is now associated with dormant accounts in math.SE and other sites in the network. While I plan to continue my (generally low-level) participation in MO, my current plans do not include restarting my participation in those other sites. Therefore, I will be ignoring any comments or pings that reach me from those sites, unless and until I resume my active participation there.
I remain "gone for the foreseeable future" from math.SE, tex.SE, and meta.SE.
Please do not send me private e-mail to call my attention to comments, questions, or other matters related to those sites. Thank you.
Sep 8 |
reviewed | Approve suggested edit on Amenability as a geometric property |
Sep 7 |
reviewed | Approve suggested edit on Dimension of totally reflexive modules |
Sep 3 |
reviewed | Approve suggested edit on Irreducibility of $x^m-g(y)$ |
Sep 1 |
revised |
Group structure on an arbitrary completely regular topological space that makes $(x,y)\mapsto xy^{-1}$ continuous at $(1,1)$
more accurate title |
Aug 23 |
comment |
Who defined and who coined “module”?
I would say, in answer to your edit, that if that is your definition of "define" then Dedekind both coined and defined the term (just like he coined the term "ideal", as opposed to "ideal number"). Noether generalized, just like she generalized a lot of the theory of rings and ideals, but according to Stillwell in the work quoted by anon, she was fond of saying "Es steht schon bei Dedekind" ("It is already in Dedekind") when talking about ideals/modules. |
Aug 11 |
comment |
Self-duality of the subgroup lattice of $G\times H$
I realize the observation above doesn't answer the question; but it now looks more like: if the product of two lattices is self-dual, is one of the lattices self-dual? And that does indeed look suspect. |
Aug 10 |
comment |
Self-duality of the subgroup lattice of $G\times H$
The condition on the orders of $G$ and $H$ imply that every subgroup of $G\times H$ is of the form $A\times B$ with $A\leq G$ and $B\leq H$. Hence, the lattice of subgroups of $G\times H$ is equal to the product of the lattices of the subgroups of $G$ and of $H$. |
Aug 8 |
revised |
Combination of two recent problems about finite groups of square orders
fix formatting |
Aug 4 |
reviewed | Reject suggested edit on Existence of solutions of a polynomial system |
Aug 3 |
comment |
Classification of 2-groups with center of index 4
@StefanKohl: Just to nitpick, it's very easy to characterize all groups with center of index 2: they do not exist.... |
Aug 3 |
comment |
On direct product of capable groups
In general, you cannot hope for these kind of converses without conditions; just the fact that the product of two cyclic groups of the same order is always capable, but a nontrivial cyclic group is not, should tell you that this will not in general work; making one of the factors nilpotent does not, in my mind, give you enough leverage. The problems lie much deeper. |
Aug 3 |
comment |
Existence a finite capable p-group of class two
I do have to ask: why would we care? i.e., where did these conditions come from, and why should we impose them on a group? |
Aug 2 |
revised |
Existence a finite capable p-group of class two
deleted 1 character in body |
Aug 2 |
revised |
Existence a finite capable p-group of class two
title was ungrammatical; attempt at a grammatical one. |
Aug 2 |
answered | Existence a finite capable p-group of class two |
Jul 3 |
reviewed | Reject suggested edit on nontrivial theorems with trivial proofs |
Jul 2 |
awarded | Curious |
Jun 17 |
reviewed | Approve suggested edit on character degree and solvability |
Jun 17 |
reviewed | Approve suggested edit on Graphs with many edges avoided by Hamiltonian cycles |
Jun 17 |
answered | Relation of the order of elements in a metabelian group |