Timeline for What is the definition of "canonical"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6 at 12:53 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @seub canonical automorphism, then... | |
| Aug 22, 2021 at 23:46 | comment | added | seub | "There are in fact two canonical maps $A \rightarrow A$" What about the zero map? | |
| Dec 16, 2020 at 1:12 | comment | added | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | By this definition (comparing with the other answers), is this a canonical answer? | |
| May 31, 2019 at 18:49 | comment | added | user140765 | @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez Herr Scholze himself is using Frobenii, so there is not much choice by this point (math.uni-bonn.de/people/scholze/Berkeley.pdf) | |
| May 31, 2019 at 18:23 | comment | added | user140765 | @FrançoisG.Dorais can you trust yourself with that kind of responsibility? I am not implying anything, I just would not trust myself really. | |
| Jul 17, 2018 at 23:42 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Mathscinet gives 10 hits for "Anywhere=(Frobenious)" but it looks like they are all just spelling errors. | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 7:30 | history | edited | A_S | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Add some $
|
| Feb 21, 2013 at 23:24 | comment | added | Mark Meckes | I believe that, Todd, I just doubt it was the case in the instance I saw. | |
| Feb 19, 2013 at 15:48 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | But Mark, I know for a fact that some people use that misspelling quite intentionally! | |
| Feb 16, 2013 at 19:13 | comment | added | Mark Meckes | @Todd: I doubt it. The person who wrote that misspelling rarely spelled a name of 8 or more letters correctly. | |
| Feb 16, 2013 at 15:40 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Mark, I think that "misspelling" is quite intentional. Poor Frobenius. | |
| Mar 29, 2010 at 13:00 | comment | added | Mark Meckes | I once saw the misspelling "Frobenious", followed by someone's suggestion that this was the adjectival form. | |
| Mar 29, 2010 at 4:16 | comment | added | Tyler Lawson | I've heard it too. I've even heard the verb "Frobenate" for applying the Frobenius map to something. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 23:34 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | Please tell me people do not use the plural Frobenii! | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 22:06 | comment | added | François G. Dorais | @Kevin: I like your examples. I think they illustrate very well how the line between what I called 'uniform' and 'canonical' is sometimes blurry. You appear to be one who regards 'uniform' as basically the same as 'canonical'. That's fine with me but many will disagree. I would prefer to avoid 'canonical' altogether (though I often forget force of habit) and use 'uniform' instead. In Computability Theory, for example, I rarely see the word 'canonical' but 'uniform' is used all over the place. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 21:52 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | @Francois: the class field theory situation is just a fancy variant of your shoe puzzle in your answer. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 20:52 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | @Francois: somehow it's worse than that with the class field theory isomorphism. It's not that you can't trust your neighbour---there really is a 50-50 chance with that one. But somehow what saves us is that it's not that there's one canonical pair of maps, there really are two canonical maps, so if you were to confer beforehand then you'd both get the same map, whereas however much conferring you did, if you were presented with two abstract 1-dimensional real vector spaces where you couldn't see anything at all but fog, you'd never both manage to choose the same basis. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 20:40 | comment | added | François G. Dorais | I like the working definition, but I can't trust my neighbors with that kind of responsibility. To paraphrase something I hear very often from one of my colleagues: "You mean a (blah) that would occur in real mathematics, not any (blah) that I would come up with." | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 20:27 | history | answered | Kevin Buzzard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |