bio | website | Mail:firstname.lastnameatgmai… |
---|---|---|
location | Regensburg, Germany | |
age | ||
visits | member for | 5 years, 3 months |
seen | 2 days ago | |
stats | profile views | 3,953 |
Jan 24 |
reviewed | Approve orthogonal-polynomials tag wiki excerpt |
Jan 21 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Jan 21 |
revised |
Proof correctness problem
replaced broken link |
Jan 21 |
comment |
Widely accepted mathematical results that were later shown wrong?
@KConrad: Thanks, fixed. |
Jan 21 |
revised |
Widely accepted mathematical results that were later shown wrong?
added 56 characters in body |
Jan 21 |
revised |
Widely accepted mathematical results that were later shown wrong?
gave alternative sources to replace broken link |
Jan 3 |
reviewed | Approve Is there a name for this property in set-valued analysis? |
Dec 18 |
awarded | Notable Question |
Dec 18 |
reviewed | Approve rigid-analytic-geometry tag wiki excerpt |
Dec 9 |
comment |
$E_n$ structures on Symmetric Monoidal Stable infinity-categories
Okay, I don't understand the question then - sorry! |
Dec 9 |
comment |
$E_n$ structures on Symmetric Monoidal Stable infinity-categories
The $E_n$-operad is treated in chapter 5 of Lurie's Higher Algebra, an $E_n$-algebra in the category of stable $\infty$-categories should be the notion you are looking for. Corollary 5.1.1.5 is the limit statement you hinted at. |
Dec 1 |
comment |
Algebraic dependency over $\mathbb{F}_{2}$
@joro See my last comment: These are non-zero polynomials, which happen to represent the zero function. But the question of algebraic dependence is whether one can produce the zero polynomial. |
Dec 1 |
comment |
Algebraic dependency over $\mathbb{F}_{2}$
@joro The question is whether the resulting polynomial is zero itself, not whether it represents the constant function with value zero. |
Nov 30 |
comment |
Algebraic dependency over $\mathbb{F}_{2}$
@Turbo The question is whether there is another polynomial $0 \neq g \in \mathbb{F}_2[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ such that $g(f_1, \ldots, f_n)=0$. |
Nov 22 |
reviewed | Reject complex-analysis tag wiki |
Nov 19 |
comment |
What is your favorite ADE-style classification?
It's more an AC/DC style classification |
Nov 19 |
reviewed | Approve Classification of the Kähler Structures on the Sphere |
Nov 17 |
awarded | Necromancer |
Nov 16 |
comment |
The category of abelian group objects
I very much doubt that this is true. The category of abelian groups in a topos has lots of very nice properties and general abelian categories can probably get much wilder than that. Take for example the category of finitely generated R-modules for a noncommutative left-noetherian ring R. It is abelian and has no obvious tensor structure, while abelian group objects in a topos have the obvious closed monoidal structure with all its good properties. I can't think of a proof that this is a counterexample, though... |
Nov 2 |
reviewed | Approve math-education-history tag wiki excerpt |