bio | website | |
---|---|---|
location | ||
age | 31 | |
visits | member for | 5 years, 2 months |
seen | 17 hours ago | |
stats | profile views | 1,123 |
A nomadic postdoc, currently in Australia.
Apr 13 |
asked | Topological systems of imprimitivity |
Apr 2 |
comment |
Should one post a paper on the arXiv if it is not intended to be published?
The novelty threshold for putting something on the arXiv is lower than for a typical journal article. For instance, I would not be surprised to see notes from a postgrad-level study group up there, if the topic was something that has not yet been standardised into textbook form. If it's something that could be useful to research-level mathematicians, then go ahead. |
Feb 17 |
awarded | Yearling |
Dec 22 |
comment |
Powers in compact coset spaces
Good point about sequential compactness. It looks like a net would work for the $\mathbb{T}^{\mathbb{T}}$ example. |
Dec 22 |
comment |
Powers in compact coset spaces
If $G$ is t.d.l.c. and $K$ is normal, it reduces to the profinite case, which is indeed easy. I'm wondering what happens if $K$ is not normal. |
Dec 22 |
revised |
Powers in compact coset spaces
added 15 characters in body |
Dec 22 |
comment |
Powers in compact coset spaces
Ah yes, I see the issue there if $G$ is not metrisable. Yes, a net is fine. |
Dec 22 |
asked | Powers in compact coset spaces |
Dec 17 |
awarded | Good Question |
Dec 16 |
comment |
What is the universal property of quotienting a normaliser of the subgroup?
In the context of $G$-sets, 'conjugacy class of subgroups' is perhaps a more natural notion than 'subgroup', since conjugacy classes of subgroups naturally correspond to transitive $G$-sets. |
Dec 15 |
comment |
Why do sporadic simple groups have so few conjugacy classes?
That is interesting. I wonder how much of this is coming from the Weyl group and how much from the Borel subgroup. |
Dec 15 |
comment |
Why do sporadic simple groups have so few conjugacy classes?
For general groups of Lie type, I would guess that increasing the field size tends to give relatively many conjugacy classes (since it doesn't add any 'non-abelian-ness'), whereas increasing the rank does not, as per Nick Gill's answer. |
Dec 15 |
comment |
Why do sporadic simple groups have so few conjugacy classes?
Yes, that makes sense as an invariant. I suppose it is only some of the sporadics that stand out. Maybe the issue is more that $A_n$ has unusually many classes by simple group standards? |
Dec 15 |
reviewed | Approve What is interesting/useful about Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity? |
Dec 15 |
awarded | Nice Question |
Dec 15 |
comment |
Why do sporadic simple groups have so few conjugacy classes?
The fact that the Monster needs nearly 200000 dimensions to be represented linearly over any field is striking in its own right, but only a few of the sporadics are like this. |
Dec 14 |
asked | Why do sporadic simple groups have so few conjugacy classes? |
Dec 14 |
awarded | Custodian |
Dec 14 |
reviewed | Reject Time estimate to determine if a number is prime |
Dec 14 |
awarded | Custodian |