Timeline for Over which fields are symmetric matrices diagonalizable ?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 29, 2019 at 18:44 | comment | added | darij grinberg | A related question has now been answered at math.stackexchange.com/questions/3307062/… . | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Jan 13, 2013 at 1:55 | history | edited | Brendan McKay | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
correct typo in title
|
| Jan 12, 2013 at 10:58 | answer | added | Name | timeline score: 28 | |
| Jan 11, 2013 at 23:06 | comment | added | tomasz | That's the reason why in $\mathbb{C}$ one has to consider the adjoint and not the transpose. | |
| Jan 11, 2013 at 23:01 | answer | added | Will Sawin | timeline score: 37 | |
| Jan 11, 2013 at 23:00 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | (Which doesn't say anything against your question; just thought it might be worth pointing out) | |
| Jan 11, 2013 at 23:00 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I forget the exact reference or construction, but every square complex matrix is similar to a complex symmetric one, so already the case $F={\mathbb C}$ fails | |
| Jan 11, 2013 at 22:57 | comment | added | Qfwfq | You may also be interested in: mathoverflow.net/questions/105870/… | |
| Jan 11, 2013 at 22:40 | history | asked | tomasz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |