Timeline for Continuous change of basis (and on the definition of determinant) [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 12, 2012 at 22:38 | vote | accept | Gabriel Nivasch | ||
| Nov 11, 2012 at 22:13 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I agree with Theo that perhaps the opening paragraph creates a misleading impression. | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 22:12 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Speaking as someone who has never had to teach the definition of a determinant, and isn't completely satisfied with the approaches seen in the books I've consulted for teaching: I vote to re-open. It might not be "research mathematics" but it is something where a research-level perspective might illuminate the pedagogical niceties. | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 22:09 | history | closed |
Dmitri Pavlov Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Alexandre Eremenko user9072 Gerry Myerson |
off topic | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 22:07 | comment | added | Theo Johnson-Freyd | Hi Gabriel, your question is a great one: well written, with good motivation and comments on your own thoughts. But I agree with the other comments that it is standard material in many linear algebra classes. I think thus question would be excellent at math.stackexchange. Perhaps part of what's causing an objection is the opening paragraph, which is worded like a homework question. I should say, this is a nontrivial result that you are asking about: why should the group of invertible matrices have precisely two components, and not more? | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 22:01 | answer | added | paul garrett | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 20:55 | comment | added | Gabriel Nivasch | Alexandre: No, the answer to my question involves topological notions such as path-connectivity (see Robert's answer below). It's not standard first-year linear algebra. Please don't close it. | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 20:16 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | This is something taught in the standard LA classes. I vote to close the question. | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 19:21 | comment | added | Margaret Friedland | @Dmitri: the definition of the determinant in that answer is formulated differently (although equivalently), and there is no definition of orientation. | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 19:16 | answer | added | Robert Israel | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 19:09 | comment | added | Gabriel Nivasch | That previous post doesn't address my continuous motion question, nor the related question of how best to define "orientation". | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 18:54 | comment | added | Dmitri Pavlov | This question has been answered before: mathoverflow.net/questions/7584/… | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 18:33 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | Your question is off-topic in this site, where the subject is research-related math. You can ask your question at math.stackexchange.com or some of the other sites listed in the FAQ. | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 18:30 | answer | added | Margaret Friedland | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 17:25 | history | asked | Gabriel Nivasch | CC BY-SA 3.0 |