Timeline for Factorization system "tilted" by $(L,R)$
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 22, 2016 at 12:28 | comment | added | fosco | I am a child indeed (-: | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 12:11 | vote | accept | fosco | ||
| Apr 22, 2016 at 12:11 | comment | added | fosco | Ah, now I see the edit; nice. I think I'll try to do the exercise, do you have an answer for it? | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 9:49 | history | edited | Paul Taylor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 395 characters in body
|
| Apr 22, 2016 at 7:55 | history | edited | Paul Taylor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 46 characters in body
|
| Apr 21, 2016 at 21:53 | comment | added | fosco | (a rapid check after: I'm convinced by your argument; the same proof of yours seems valid in case $R\subset M_1$ ,using $(L,R)$ instead of $(L', R')$, simply because in that case $r,l\in E_0\cap M_1$) | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 21:37 | comment | added | fosco | I'm not able to see why you define $L', R'$. I also actually realized that the generality I need is $E_1\subset L\subset E_0$, I think that in this case there are simpler proofs. Anyways, your general argument is neat and elegant. Thanks! If you spend two more words on the definition of $L', R'$ I'll be happy to accept the answer. | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 17:56 | history | edited | Paul Taylor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 71 characters in body
|
| Apr 21, 2016 at 17:24 | history | edited | Paul Taylor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 15 characters in body
|
| Apr 21, 2016 at 16:57 | history | edited | Paul Taylor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Apr 21, 2016 at 16:33 | history | answered | Paul Taylor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |