Timeline for q-Integer-valued polynomials
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jan 25, 2016 at 14:38 | history | suggested | F. C. |
added the tag q-analogs
|
|
| Jan 25, 2016 at 14:20 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 25, 2016 at 14:38 | |||||
| Jan 25, 2016 at 7:07 | comment | added | F. C. | There is something similar in arxiv.org/abs/1408.1329. | |
| Jan 25, 2016 at 3:22 | history | edited | Sam Hopkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 202 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2015 at 21:32 | comment | added | Fedor Petrov | @SamHopkins I think that Bhargava considered general and concrete rings with integer-valued polynomials which admit basis similar to binomials. | |
| Sep 19, 2015 at 21:20 | vote | accept | Sam Hopkins | ||
| Sep 19, 2015 at 21:19 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | @FedorPetrov: Yes, I think you are right. I guess this question was quite simple. Still it is surprising to me that all of this $q$-deforms so nicely, and I am interested in knowing anywhere where this ring $R$ appears. | |
| Sep 19, 2015 at 21:14 | comment | added | Fedor Petrov | @SamHopkins does not the same trick with consecutive substitution of q-integers (as on the link) allow to calculate structure constants? | |
| Sep 19, 2015 at 20:59 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | @Nate: Of course you are right. I always mix up this notation. | |
| Sep 19, 2015 at 20:59 | history | edited | Sam Hopkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2015 at 20:40 | comment | added | Nate | Minor comment: We should probably take $\mathbb{Q}(q)$ instead of $\mathbb{Q}[q,q^{-1}]$ since the denominators aren't just powers of $q$. | |
| Sep 19, 2015 at 18:21 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | Another implicit part of my question: have these $q$-deformations of numerical polynomials been studied anywhere? | |
| Sep 19, 2015 at 16:10 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | This answer seems to say the classical structure constants $c_{ij}^{k}(1)$ have a simple form as a product of binomials: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1289526/…. If so, maybe the $c_{ij}^{k}(q)$ are just the obvious $q$-ifications? | |
| Sep 19, 2015 at 13:33 | answer | added | Fedor Petrov | timeline score: 7 | |
| Sep 19, 2015 at 13:26 | history | edited | Fedor Petrov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2015 at 13:08 | history | edited | Sam Hopkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 40 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2015 at 13:02 | history | asked | Sam Hopkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |