Timeline for What is currently feasible in invariant theory for binary forms?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16 at 2:59 | comment | added | Zach Teitler | It appears that the mistake in OEIS has been corrected. It now says "Table of n, a(n) for n=2..10." | |
| Jun 1, 2019 at 17:11 | history | edited | Abdelmalek Abdesselam | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 402 characters in body
|
| Nov 26, 2017 at 20:26 | vote | accept | Colin McLarty | ||
| Nov 26, 2017 at 19:20 | comment | added | Abdelmalek Abdesselam | @Colin: It's just a mistake in OEIS. If by definition $a(n)$ is the number of generating invariants for binary forms of degree $n$, then by looking at oeis.org/A036983/list , namely, the list format, then you can see that they are off by one in their indexing. The linear form has no invariants. The binary quadratic and cubic only have one invariant. | |
| Nov 25, 2017 at 14:57 | comment | added | Colin McLarty | @MartinRubey That makes sense but I do not understand what they mean when they link to "Table of n, a(n) for n=2..11." | |
| Nov 25, 2017 at 14:30 | comment | added | Martin Rubey | I don't think so, the last entry is 106. | |
| Nov 25, 2017 at 14:15 | comment | added | Colin McLarty | @MartinRubey the series A036983 seems to go beyond this answer by including ${\rm Inv}_{11}$. Have I understood that correctly? | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 20:32 | comment | added | Martin Rubey | slightly outdated: oeis.org/A036984 and oeis.org/A036983. | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 20:16 | history | edited | Abdelmalek Abdesselam | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 469 characters in body
|
| Nov 24, 2017 at 19:37 | history | answered | Abdelmalek Abdesselam | CC BY-SA 3.0 |