Timeline for Simple representations of products of algebraic groups
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2013 at 12:39 | history | edited | Communicative Algebra | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added: full quote of Jantzen's lemma (for anybody who doesn't have his book at hand); weakened: last paragraph
|
| Aug 11, 2013 at 19:49 | comment | added | Jim Humphreys | @CA: To update the history, I think I did see the title Algebre communicatif on an old Bourbaki chapter, and certainly the copy I have of their 1959 Chap. 4-5 in the series Algebre has a cover describing Chap. 5 as Corps communicatifs. I've also run across the spelling Communicative used for Eisenbud's book and a later collection he edited after an Asian conference. The spelling is contagious. | |
| Aug 11, 2013 at 6:51 | comment | added | Communicative Algebra | @JimHumphreys: Thanks for helping me trace my roots! I don't like being discredited as a “mistake”, though. Eisenbud has dedicated a whole monograph to me, available exclusively from the University Library of Wuppertal (see this larger version of my profile picture.) And in any case, I mathoverflow, so I am. | |
| Aug 10, 2013 at 13:19 | answer | added | Jim Humphreys | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 8, 2013 at 22:44 | comment | added | Jim Humphreys | @CA: I'm not sure offhand what is written down explicitly in books or such, but I guess the argument for simplicity is the same as for abstract groups. But people don't always need the general case, so for instance Serre's Part I on finite group representations over $\mathbb{C}$ just gives an ad hoc proof using the group algebra and complete reducibility. (P.S. The term "Communicative Algebra" actually appears prominently by mistake in a French chapter of the Bourbaki series on commutative algebra.) | |
| Aug 8, 2013 at 15:50 | answer | added | jriou | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 7, 2013 at 7:39 | comment | added | Communicative Algebra | For the time being, I've included my own argument as Proposition 4.1 in arXiv:1308.0796. | |
| Jul 27, 2013 at 14:15 | comment | added | Communicative Algebra | Thanks. I had actually seen that post. The discussion there is related to the fact that $V_1\otimes V_2$ indeed is a $G_1\times G_2$-representation, but there is no assertion of simplicity etc. | |
| Jul 27, 2013 at 12:23 | comment | added | Dietrich Burde | See also mathoverflow.net/questions/80558/… | |
| Jul 27, 2013 at 10:16 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 27, 2013 at 10:41 | |||||
| Jul 27, 2013 at 10:00 | history | asked | Communicative Algebra | CC BY-SA 3.0 |