Timeline for Singularities of an analytic function over a non-archimedean field
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 23, 2015 at 9:04 | history | edited | Helene Sigloch | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
updated the question, added two more subquestions
|
| Mar 25, 2015 at 10:57 | history | edited | Helene Sigloch |
re-tagged
|
|
| Mar 25, 2015 at 9:15 | history | edited | Helene Sigloch | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
updated the state of the question
|
| Mar 24, 2015 at 14:00 | history | edited | Helene Sigloch | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 86 characters in body
|
| Mar 24, 2015 at 13:58 | comment | added | Helene Sigloch | The term meromorphic function is ok, you are absolutely right. The point of my confusion was that I was mixing up the convergent power series viewpoint with the functions viewpoint. I'm not confused about that any more. But my question is about the power series. I write you an email. | |
| Mar 24, 2015 at 13:55 | comment | added | Jérôme Poineau | By "rather trivial", I mean what you said above: the bahaviour of a series is the same everywhere at the "boundary" of the disk of convergence. | |
| Mar 24, 2015 at 13:53 | comment | added | Jérôme Poineau | When I hear meromorphic function on the line, I understand that it is locally the quotient of two analytic functions around every point of the line. So, in some sense, it is defined everywhere and I do not naturally see a ball of convergence. Do you have an example of a paper where you saw that? | |
| Mar 24, 2015 at 13:44 | comment | added | Helene Sigloch | Hi Jerome! OK, the problem is that you cannot identify the function with the power series, at least not at the boundary of the ball of convergence. Thanks. What do you mean by "rather trivial"? | |
| Mar 24, 2015 at 13:31 | comment | added | Jérôme Poineau | As for your questions, as you say, it seems to me that the theory is rather trivial and I am not sure that there is much to say. Anyway I did not hear of anybody working on that. | |
| Mar 24, 2015 at 13:27 | comment | added | Jérôme Poineau | Hi Helene! In the case of meromorphic functions, I think people mean poles when they write singularities. So in dimension 1, it is indeed a discrete set. | |
| Mar 24, 2015 at 8:57 | history | edited | Helene Sigloch | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added two new subquestions
|
| Mar 24, 2015 at 8:49 | history | edited | Helene Sigloch |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 23, 2015 at 16:19 | history | asked | Helene Sigloch | CC BY-SA 3.0 |