Timeline for Klein's curve (algebraic geometry)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 12, 2016 at 12:25 | comment | added | john mangual | @EmmaPreviato you are certainly not vacuous, these algebraic geometry terms are | |
| Oct 12, 2016 at 4:27 | comment | added | Emma Previato | Gerry: Special thanks! (I love words), I too thought the noun was "vacuity" but it sounded a tad weird, so I googled... and to me, google rules! (vacuousness was the first to come up, plus it's on freedictionary, and as we mathematicians--but, do I qualify?--all know, the best things in life are free) | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 11:47 | comment | added | john mangual | @GerryMyerson this discussion is vacuous - and possibly my answer - I have moved on to the next question | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 5:49 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | OK, but what does that have to do with addressing a comment to me in which you write "There's no need to take it personally" – what were you referring to? | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 2:35 | comment | added | john mangual | @GerryMyerson Not at all! All I am saying is that algebraic geometry itself can be difficult to learn, due to it's ambiguous jargon. | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 1:07 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | I beg your pardon, john – did I appear to be taking something personally? | |
| Oct 10, 2016 at 23:11 | comment | added | john mangual | @GerryMyerson Algebraic geometry has the "fundamental class", the "canonical ring", the "tautological bundle". They are called these named for a reason. There's no need to take it personally -- these terms are vacuous. | |
| Oct 10, 2016 at 22:12 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | I think, Emma, that the noun from "vacuous" is not "vacuousness", but "vacuity". | |
| Oct 10, 2016 at 18:38 | history | edited | john mangual | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
brief discussion of theta functions m² + 7n²
|
| Oct 10, 2016 at 16:40 | history | edited | john mangual | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 334 characters in body
|
| Oct 10, 2016 at 16:24 | history | edited | john mangual | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
more details
|
| Oct 10, 2016 at 15:06 | history | edited | john mangual | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 75 characters in body
|
| Oct 10, 2016 at 14:41 | comment | added | Donu Arapura | I occasionally turn to MO in the mornings as a respite from reading the news. I thought that at least here we would all understand what words actually mean. | |
| Oct 10, 2016 at 6:40 | comment | added | Dan Petersen | If you're not sure what "canonical ring" means in this context, maybe this is not a question for you to answer? Any algebraic geometer can understand the question perfectly well. | |
| Oct 10, 2016 at 6:16 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | How can you say that the canonical ring $$R(X, \, K_X) = \bigoplus _{n \in \mathbb{N}} H^0(X, \, nK_X)$$ is a vacuous term? | |
| Oct 10, 2016 at 5:26 | comment | added | Emma Previato | John: I have been called many names in my (long) life, but this is the first time I'm being called "vacuous": that is BRILLIANT! that's exactly what I am. Thank you, I had read the book but many readers will benefit from your reference! My answer to your puzzlement (in the slight chance you care to know) is in the comment to Amdeberhan, but my vacuousness (now that I know) is eternal! :-) | |
| Oct 10, 2016 at 4:11 | history | answered | john mangual | CC BY-SA 3.0 |