Timeline for Parallel frame for marginally trapped bi-harmonic surfaces in $\Bbb R^4_2$
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 16, 2018 at 21:31 | history | edited | Ivo Terek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 837 characters in body
|
| Feb 14, 2018 at 2:36 | comment | added | Ivo Terek | (That is, despite that assumption being a typo, it appears that he actually used it. My "new" equations (5.9) and (5.10) reduce to his, in that case.) | |
| Feb 14, 2018 at 2:31 | comment | added | Ivo Terek | I'm exchanging emails with the author. He said that $\nabla_{e_i}e_j=0$ for $i=1,2$ is a typo that should be removed. It also appears to have another mistake in equations (5.9) and (5.10), which'll make $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ appear in the expressions for $DH$. Particularly, I can't see how ${\rm trace}(A_{DH})=0$ implies $DH=0$ anymore. I sent him a quick calculation trying to fix equations (5.9) and (5.10) a couple of hours ago. Let's see if we can come up with something... | |
| Feb 14, 2018 at 2:25 | comment | added | Anthony Carapetis | From a quick glance I agree with your assessment. Does the proof actually use the assumption $\nabla_{e_i} e_j = 0$? Since the argument deals with nonzero $\omega$ terms, perhaps the inclusion of this assumption is just a mistake? | |
| Feb 13, 2018 at 0:27 | history | edited | Ivo Terek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 175 characters in body; edited title
|
| Feb 12, 2018 at 21:51 | history | asked | Ivo Terek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |