Timeline for What is the essence of the constant factor in the standard definitions of the discriminant?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 7, 2017 at 12:49 | history | edited | Gerry Myerson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo
|
| Sep 7, 2017 at 10:04 | answer | added | Peter Heinig | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Sep 7, 2017 at 10:00 | history | suggested | Peter Heinig | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
I corrected some indexing mistakes, which the software says were introduced by me, not the OP. I think style of question is preserved; notably, formulation 'the essence of', and the decision of the OP to name the leading coefficient '$f_0$', which is inconsistent with first line of the OP.
|
| Sep 7, 2017 at 9:03 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 7, 2017 at 10:00 | |||||
| Sep 7, 2017 at 6:06 | comment | added | Peter Heinig | @GerryMyerson: many thanks for pointing out. The missing 'not' was simply a mistake. The (indeed) wrong indexing of the sums is eery, not matter how it happened, since I do not remember changing the indexes of the sums, I only consciously changed the indexation of the product, which the OP made range over all pairs of distinct indices, which is (fields being free of zero-divisors) not wrong, yet highly nonstandard. Anyway, I will correct it, yet only in two hours from now, since I will now have to go offline. | |
| Sep 7, 2017 at 3:43 | answer | added | Chris McDaniel | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 6, 2017 at 23:21 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | @Peter, I don't understand the edits you made. You changed "But, when $f$ is not monic" to "But, when $f$ is monic," which seems to me to be exactly wrong. Also, with the indexing you introduced on the sums, the polynomials now have constant term zero, and leading term $2f_0x^m$. Can you please reconsider? | |
| Sep 6, 2017 at 18:57 | vote | accept | Mikhail Goltvanitsa | ||
| Sep 6, 2017 at 18:52 | history | edited | Mikhail Goltvanitsa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| S Sep 6, 2017 at 18:51 | history | suggested | Peter Heinig | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
On the principle that the (important) principle of respecting even the style of a question should not extend to keeping obvious mistakes, I made several, mostly grammatical (in one case, the indexation of the product, also mathematical) corrections.
|
| Sep 6, 2017 at 18:40 | comment | added | Peter Heinig | Worth pointing out: in the literature one sometimes finds authors explicitly terminologically distinguishing the so-called normalized discriminant, which simply has the factor in question left out, from the so-called standard discriminant, which has the factor $f_0^{2m-2}$. | |
| Sep 6, 2017 at 18:37 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 6, 2017 at 18:51 | |||||
| Sep 6, 2017 at 18:21 | history | edited | Mikhail Goltvanitsa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Sep 6, 2017 at 18:18 | answer | added | Joe Silverman | timeline score: 11 | |
| Sep 6, 2017 at 18:12 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 7, 2017 at 5:47 | |||||
| Sep 6, 2017 at 18:11 | comment | added | Mikhail Goltvanitsa | Thank you, but I think that I forgot a square =) | |
| Sep 6, 2017 at 18:11 | history | edited | Mikhail Goltvanitsa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Sep 6, 2017 at 18:08 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
Removed deprecated (abstract-algebra) tag - see the tag info: https://mathoverflow.net/tags/abstract-algebra/info (if there are some other suitable tags, choose them instead.)
|
|
| Sep 6, 2017 at 17:37 | answer | added | Robert Israel | timeline score: 10 | |
| Sep 6, 2017 at 17:36 | comment | added | Robert Israel | That is not quite correct: you left out a factor $(-1)^{m(m-1)/2}$. | |
| Sep 6, 2017 at 17:17 | history | asked | Mikhail Goltvanitsa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |