1d

answered  Are there exactly solvable CFTs? 
Feb
3 
revised 
What mathematical treatment is there on the renormalization group flow in a space of Lagrangians?
updated more references 
Feb
3 
revised 
What mathematical treatment is there on the renormalization group flow in a space of Lagrangians?
updated reference and prived URL 
Jan
25 
awarded  Good Answer 
Nov
30 
answered  How are the realspace RG transformations defined? 
Nov
19 
comment 
Is there a similar theory as for symmetric polynomials, that deals with polynomials on the entries of matrices that are symmetric in both dimensions?
I mean Pouzet conjectured that some statement A about invariant rings implies B which is the graph satisfies the graph isomorphism property, i.e., it is the only one up to isomorphism with the same unordered list with repetition of subgraphs with one less vertex. Now Thiery proved that (A implies B) is false. So my question is what remains of the "sound" "general setup"? Are there precise viable substitutes for Pouzet's conjecture written somewhere in the literature? 
Nov
19 
comment 
Is there a similar theory as for symmetric polynomials, that deals with polynomials on the entries of matrices that are symmetric in both dimensions?
@Dima: thanks but when I checked my copy of DerskenKemper what they say about the connection graph isomorphism pbm<>invariant rings does not sound good. Pouzet's conjecture to this effect was shown to be false by Thiery. So is there still a precise viable connection in the literature? 
Nov
17 
awarded  Nice Answer 
Nov
12 
comment 
Is there a similar theory as for symmetric polynomials, that deals with polynomials on the entries of matrices that are symmetric in both dimensions?
@Dima: what you said about bipartite graphs sounded very interesting, but did not have enough details for me to understand it well. What specific problem from the theory of bipartite graphs could one solve if one had a good enough description of the invariant ring that the OP is asking about? References would be appreciated. 
Nov
12 
answered  Is there a similar theory as for symmetric polynomials, that deals with polynomials on the entries of matrices that are symmetric in both dimensions? 
Nov
11 
answered  Can a general binary sextic form be put into the following form? 
Nov
11 
comment 
Involutions of binary sextic forms
My paper with Chipalkatti refers to my coauthor's article on the degree 18 of the binary quintic, not sextic. The latter is due to Hermite. I actually don't know who first discovered the degree 15 invariant for sextics. What kind of info would you like on this degree 15 invariant? 
Sep
22 
comment 
Name for an orthogonal decomposition of $L^2 (\mathbb{R}^2; \mathbb{C})$
yes. I always wondered also about combinatoric vs combinatorial... 
Sep
22 
answered  Name for an orthogonal decomposition of $L^2 (\mathbb{R}^2; \mathbb{C})$ 
Sep
22 
comment 
The GuinandWeil explicit formula without entire function theory
another very nice introductory reference for the explicit formula is the article "The explicit formula in simple terms" by JeanFrancois Burnol available here arxiv.org/abs/math/9810169 
Sep
18 
awarded  Nice Answer 
Sep
14 
comment 
Waveletlike Schauder basis for standard spaces of test functions?
@Pedro: indeed othogonality would have to be sacrificed. Thanks for pointing out the LP wavelets from Meyer's book. I will have a look. 
Sep
11 
comment 
Examples of major theorems with very hard proofs that have NOT dramatically improved over time
I don't know if it is simpler but there seems to be a more "conceptual" proof arxiv.org/abs/1305.0926 by Maculan which relates the result to GIT and Arakelov geometry. 
Sep
11 
answered  Examples of major theorems with very hard proofs that have NOT dramatically improved over time 
Sep
10 
comment 
Uniform definition of $S(\mathbb{R})$ and $S(\mathbb{Q}_p)$
other issue with "subspace of $L^1\cap L^2$, Fourier stable, dense and nuclear": nuclearity with respect to which topology? 