Skip to main content
7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 5, 2013 at 3:42 comment added Gigel Militaru The same is valid with the elements that are nonsquare in $K$. If $a$ is nonsquare, then $(a,0)$ is not equivalent to $(0,0)$ or $(0,1)$. The number of such elements is the index of the group $(K^2)^*$ in $(K^*, \cdot)$. That is exactly what you say; and the same thing follows trivialy from the relation of equivalence.
May 5, 2013 at 3:32 comment added Gigel Militaru My english... What I what to say is the following: dealing with polinomials or with the above relation is exactely the same thing. Is just a matter of taste. The fact that the polionomials $X^2$ and $X (X+1)$ are not in the same orbit is nothing else that a reformulation of the fact that $(0,0)$ and $(0, 1)$ are not equivalent in $K \times K$. In both cases, we arrive at the same algebras: $k<x | x^2 = 0>$ or $k<x | x^2 = 1>$.
May 4, 2013 at 20:18 comment added Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Your comment makes me think that you misunderstand what I wrote. I did noy say that the two polynomials $X^2$ and $X(X+1)$ are in the same orbit ---I said exactly the opposite. The rest of the comment, I don't understand it.
May 4, 2013 at 19:09 comment added Gigel Militaru Than you! That is probably the best thing that you can say on the problem :( On the other hand, as a said, is a little bit ... a reformulation of the equivalent relation. The first two polynomial coresspound in fact to the non-equivalent pairs $(0, 0)$ and $(0, 1)$. The third one to $(a, 0)$, where $a$ is not a square in $K$, while the last case (the one that make trouble) is the first part of the equivalent relation up to a normalization.
May 4, 2013 at 19:00 history edited Mariano Suárez-Álvarez CC BY-SA 3.0
added 270 characters in body; added 1 characters in body
May 4, 2013 at 18:40 history edited Mariano Suárez-Álvarez CC BY-SA 3.0
added 184 characters in body
May 4, 2013 at 18:34 history answered Mariano Suárez-Álvarez CC BY-SA 3.0