Timeline for Is there any approximated version of Hilbert 90?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2010 at 4:58 | history | edited | abcdxyz | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 235 characters in body
|
| Apr 13, 2010 at 2:19 | vote | accept | abcdxyz | ||
| Apr 13, 2010 at 1:53 | comment | added | abcdxyz | The problem that I found (if it is really a problem) is that there might be no element in the neighborhood of $a$ which has of norm 1. I try to mimic the original proof for the cyclic case but the independence of automorphism does not work anymore, I mean it still work but I can not bound the $b$ given by this process. | |
| Apr 12, 2010 at 20:57 | answer | added | Paul Broussous | timeline score: 8 | |
| Apr 12, 2010 at 19:35 | comment | added | Felipe Voloch | Doesn't that follow from the standard proof? | |
| Apr 12, 2010 at 19:14 | history | edited | abcdxyz | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
edited body
|
| Apr 12, 2010 at 19:14 | comment | added | abcdxyz | the error is fixed. | |
| Apr 12, 2010 at 18:26 | comment | added | James Weigandt | I think you want $L$ a finite cyclic extension of $K$, not of $L$. | |
| Apr 12, 2010 at 18:18 | history | asked | abcdxyz | CC BY-SA 2.5 |