Timeline for Cyclotomic fields
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 9, 2014 at 5:14 | history | edited | Suman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| May 16, 2013 at 22:30 | comment | added | Tom Goodwillie | Ah, now I see. Forgive my flippant comment. I am fond of the number zero. | |
| May 16, 2013 at 17:13 | vote | accept | Suman | ||
| May 16, 2013 at 16:06 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | @Tom: My comment concerned the first version of the question, where it was impossible to guess that the OP is actually talking about ideals. It looked like a plain identity between two numbers (which were actually distinct). | |
| May 16, 2013 at 15:57 | comment | added | Tom Goodwillie | I suspect that Emil made the mistake of looking at $\zeta_{p^0}-1$. | |
| May 16, 2013 at 15:50 | answer | added | Venkataramana | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 16, 2013 at 15:35 | comment | added | Arijit | Well they certainly have the same valuation. | |
| May 16, 2013 at 15:28 | comment | added | Suman | It's not false. Look at Washington's book on cyclotomic fields in the appendix on infinite Galois theory and ramification. | |
| May 16, 2013 at 15:25 | history | edited | Suman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| May 16, 2013 at 15:07 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | False statements tend to be hard to prove. | |
| May 16, 2013 at 14:59 | history | asked | Suman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |