Timeline for Constructing quintic number fields with certain splitting behaviour
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2014 at 21:40 | history | edited | David E Speyer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 125 characters in body
|
| Jul 22, 2014 at 20:00 | comment | added | David E Speyer | I have now edited in Don's point. | |
| Jul 22, 2014 at 20:00 | history | edited | David E Speyer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 403 characters in body
|
| Jul 22, 2014 at 19:54 | comment | added | David E Speyer | @so-calledfriendDon Excellent point! You are right! Strange that Bhargava doesn't point that out; this argument shows that Bhargava's formula is always an upper bound. | |
| Jul 22, 2014 at 19:44 | comment | added | so-called friend Don | Doesn't the hypothesis in Theorem 1.3 only require what you said for all large enough p? So why can't you (or can you?) run your argument up to an arbitrarily large finite height to get an arbitrarily small upper density, and hence a density of 0? | |
| Jul 22, 2014 at 15:17 | history | answered | David E Speyer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |