Impact
~31k
people reached
- 0 posts edited
- 0 helpful flags
- 308 votes cast
Apr
25 |
comment |
Extension property for unipotent linear groups over rings
@S.A.K.A. John You have changed the wording again. It still does not make sense. Now $G$ has nothing to do with $R$. Is $G$ an abstract group or not? What does "over some ring" mean? My example shows that such things matter. As a real Lie group my example has only one nontrivial normal subgroup, but it should never be written $\mathbb{G}_a$. |
Apr
25 |
answered | Extension property for unipotent linear groups over rings |
Apr
20 |
comment |
Complexity of solving systems of linear diophantine equations
Why Smith normal form? Hermite normal form suffices. |
Mar
29 |
comment |
Do degrees determine the chromatic number?
Play with the Petersen graph. Its edges have no three coloring. Now `untwist' it. |
Mar
21 |
awarded | Yearling |
Mar
11 |
awarded | Civic Duty |
Sep
26 |
awarded | Good Answer |
Sep
26 |
revised |
How to prove this polynomial always has integer values at all integers?
formula ran off page |
Sep
26 |
revised |
How to prove this polynomial always has integer values at all integers?
formula ran off page |
Sep
26 |
awarded | Enlightened |
Sep
25 |
comment |
How to prove this polynomial always has integer values at all integers?
It was take home. |
Sep
23 |
comment |
cohomology theory for algebraic groups
@David_Stuart The paper by Brian is called "Cohomology of Algebraic groups" and it explains that generic cohomology of a finite dimensional module equals discrete cohomology because the projective limit satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition. |
Sep
23 |
comment |
cohomology theory for algebraic groups
@David_Stuart. Am I missing a projective limit? Is the argument of van der Kallen that this is the kind of limit that is treated by J. E. Roos in LNM 92, Berlin 1969 ? |
Sep
23 |
comment |
cohomology theory for algebraic groups
Why refer to something that is difficult to get hold of? Just refer to our 1977 Inventiones paper which was a joint paper for good reasons. |
Sep
22 |
revised |
How to prove this polynomial always has integer values at all integers?
91 replaced with 153 |
Sep
22 |
revised |
How to prove this polynomial always has integer values at all integers?
three inequalities corrected |
Sep
21 |
revised |
How to prove this polynomial always has integer values at all integers?
one more number corrected |
Sep
21 |
revised |
How to prove this polynomial always has integer values at all integers?
two numbers changed |
Sep
18 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Sep
18 |
awarded | Necromancer |