Timeline for Algebraic independence of points under isometry
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 10, 2018 at 21:14 | vote | accept | Dániel G. | ||
| Nov 10, 2018 at 21:14 | comment | added | Dániel G. | Based on the linked meta discussion I chose to accept this answer. Since then I've made progress on the "intended" question, so there might be no need to ask it separately. | |
| Nov 9, 2018 at 14:13 | comment | added | Ivan Izmestiev | Actually if the original poster would like to delete this question and to ask a new question, I have nothing against this. | |
| Nov 9, 2018 at 13:37 | comment | added | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | Although there is some discussion about trivial answers to questions that are trivial because an assumption was forgotten; see e.g. here. It's not entirely clear that this is the case here, but it's something to keep in mind. | |
| Nov 9, 2018 at 11:58 | comment | added | Ivan Izmestiev | I believe, an edit should not change the question but add extra information or clarifications, see mathoverflow.net/help/editing. | |
| Nov 9, 2018 at 11:45 | comment | added | Dániel G. | I see now that I posed the question in too general terms; of course one must also require some kind of algebraic independency assumption on the edge lengths. The simplest may be to generalize the condition of the cited lemma and assume that the $i$-th point for $i \leq n$ has zeroes in the first $n+1-i$ coordinates, and that the other $nk - \binom{n+1}{2}$ coordinates are independent. Is it alright if I edit the question? Or should I ask it separately? | |
| Nov 9, 2018 at 11:42 | history | edited | Ivan Izmestiev | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 134 characters in body
|
| Nov 9, 2018 at 11:24 | history | answered | Ivan Izmestiev | CC BY-SA 4.0 |