Timeline for The saturation of Murray von Neumann relation
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
34 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Mar 7, 2016 at 17:57 | vote | accept | Ali Taghavi | ||
| S Mar 5, 2016 at 13:45 | history | bounty ended | Ali Taghavi | ||
| S Mar 5, 2016 at 13:45 | history | notice removed | Ali Taghavi | ||
| Mar 5, 2016 at 13:45 | vote | accept | Ali Taghavi | ||
| Mar 5, 2016 at 21:29 | |||||
| Mar 3, 2016 at 22:46 | answer | added | Leonel Robert | timeline score: 3 | |
| S Feb 29, 2016 at 6:24 | history | bounty started | Ali Taghavi | ||
| S Feb 29, 2016 at 6:24 | history | notice added | Ali Taghavi | Authoritative reference needed | |
| Feb 29, 2016 at 6:23 | history | edited | Ali Taghavi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 341 characters in body
|
| Feb 19, 2016 at 16:47 | comment | added | Arturo Magidin | @AliTaghavi: That's a major change to the core system; you would have to propose it in meta.stackoverflow; moderators in MO don't really have the power to make such a change. So yes, such a change would be "really difficult". Moreover, lots of people seem to be perfectly able to NOT edit their questions multiple times for minor issues, so would a minor change in your behavior towards the norm be really difficult? | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 21:10 | comment | added | Ali Taghavi | Is this change really difficult ? | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 21:08 | comment | added | Ali Taghavi | @ToddTrimble Thank you for your comment. But is not possible the following software change in MO: Consideration of two types of edites: minor and major. For minor edit, the edited post would not appear at the first page.(front page) This enable the asker to revise his/her question(with choosing minor edit). | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 20:00 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | It has been pointed out at meta (meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2749/…) that this post has undergone numerous recent edits, some of them quite minor. As you know, each edit bumps the post to the front page and pushes other questions off the front page, which can be an annoyance to others. Let's please bring the editing to a close so that users have a stable question to look at. | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 17:57 | history | edited | Ali Taghavi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 24 characters in body
|
| Feb 18, 2016 at 16:24 | comment | added | Ali Taghavi | Correction: Simplicity of R. | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 14:51 | comment | added | Ali Taghavi | @PaceNielsen Yes. thanks. so it seems that I need to add more assumption for example the simolicity of R. | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 8:22 | history | edited | Ali Taghavi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 14 characters in body
|
| Feb 18, 2016 at 7:50 | history | edited | Ali Taghavi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 176 characters in body
|
| Feb 18, 2016 at 7:08 | comment | added | Ali Taghavi | @QiaochuYuan Thank you. i revise the notation. | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 7:08 | history | edited | Ali Taghavi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 16 characters in body
|
| Feb 18, 2016 at 7:03 | history | edited | Ali Taghavi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 16 characters in body
|
| Feb 18, 2016 at 6:44 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | $\le$ is strange notation for a relation that's symmetric. Anyway, note that your definition makes no use of the additive structure, so you might as well state it for monoids. In that setting you are asking for the (zeroth) Hochschild homology of a monoid. I don't know if this has been studied much for monoids as opposed to categories. For rings it's more natural to quotient by the subspace spanned by commutators, which gets you the usual zeroth Hochschild homology. | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 6:26 | history | edited | Ali Taghavi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Feb 18, 2016 at 6:24 | comment | added | Ali Taghavi | @PaceNielsen Thanks for your comment. The saturation is the same definition which I wrote in the post. I learned it from a paper by J. Petre in his paper on characterization of linear operator decreasing the support(A paper in French). Regarding my second question, you are right, it was a typo. i revise it. | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 8:53 | comment | added | Ali Taghavi | @DavidHandelman Thank you for your comment. Can you give a reference for that result? | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 8:47 | history | edited | Ali Taghavi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Feb 17, 2016 at 8:39 | history | edited | Ali Taghavi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 31 characters in body
|
| Feb 17, 2016 at 8:32 | history | edited | Ali Taghavi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 161 characters in body
|
| Feb 17, 2016 at 6:24 | history | edited | Ali Taghavi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 168 characters in body
|
| Feb 16, 2016 at 22:53 | comment | added | David Handelman | For matrices over the complexes, $XY = A$ and $YX = B$ implies that their nonzero Jordan normal forms are the same (that is, discard the nilpotent parts of their JNFs); it follows that the equivalence relation generated by the relation is exactly equality of JNF away from zero (this is just a special case of a similar, but more complicated result when we have integer matrices). | |
| Feb 16, 2016 at 17:32 | history | edited | Ali Taghavi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Feb 16, 2016 at 17:26 | history | edited | Ali Taghavi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| Feb 16, 2016 at 17:18 | history | edited | Ali Taghavi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| Feb 16, 2016 at 17:10 | history | asked | Ali Taghavi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |