bio | website | |
---|---|---|
location | ||
age | 26 | |
visits | member for | 4 years, 10 months |
seen | May 19 '13 at 2:06 | |
stats | profile views | 265 |
Nov 7 |
awarded | Good Answer |
Jul 2 |
awarded | Curious |
May 16 |
awarded | Popular Question |
May 24 |
awarded | Scholar |
May 19 |
revised |
Reference request: Minimal Axiomatizations of PA over (+,x,<=).
added 37 characters in body |
May 19 |
comment |
Reference request: Minimal Axiomatizations of PA over (+,x,<=).
Thank you all: Joel's version is indeed what I intended. I have fixed the above. |
May 18 |
comment |
Reference request: Minimal Axiomatizations of PA over (+,x,<=).
The question I originally wrote was not the question I meant. I have corrected this: thank you abo. |
May 18 |
revised |
Reference request: Minimal Axiomatizations of PA over (+,x,<=).
added 796 characters in body |
May 18 |
asked | Reference request: Minimal Axiomatizations of PA over (+,x,<=). |
May 18 |
accepted | What is the relationship between modular forms and the Rogers-Ramanujan identities? |
Apr 10 |
awarded | Nice Question |
Nov 3 |
awarded | Notable Question |
Apr 25 |
asked | What is known about the structure of $\mathbb Z[c_1(\mathcal O_V(1))]$ for a projective $\Bbbk$-variety $V$? |
May 10 |
awarded | Popular Question |
Mar 12 |
comment |
Group ring and left zero divisor.
@darji, regarding your example, isn't it the case that if the characteristic of $K$ does not divide $|G|$, then $K[G]$ contains a copy of each irreducible representation, and that you need algebraic closure to ensure that every representation $V$ occurs $\dim V$ times and hence that $K[G]$ is isomorphic to the direct sum of the endomorphism rings? So if $K$ is not algebraically closed, you have no assurance that any of the endomorphism rings that $K$ is a sum of are more than $1$-dimensional? |
Mar 12 |
answered | Group ring and left zero divisor. |
Feb 15 |
awarded | Yearling |
Aug 12 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Aug 5 |
comment |
Is Galois theory necessary (in a basic graduate algebra course)?
I definitely did not mean to suggest that ring theory or field theory not be developed at all! (Dispensing with algebra all together is clearly way too radical an approach that the mass public is not yet ready for, pedagogically.) I just don't think that it is reasonable to omit Galois theory from such a systematic course due to time concerns; at the very least it can be introduced and its applications alluded to. Also, +1 for "for self-education and single issue purposes you must do whatever it takes" |
Aug 4 |
answered | Is Galois theory necessary (in a basic graduate algebra course)? |