Timeline for Resources on invariant theory
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 19 at 3:44 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by David Roberts♦ | ||
| May 25, 2023 at 11:31 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Link to book, while this is on the front page
|
| Jul 21, 2010 at 0:01 | comment | added | Abdelmalek Abdesselam | @Victor: Not many moderns read Grace and Young and just for that your comment deserves an up vote! However GY is not enough to get the complete picture of CIT. Some of the key players like Clebsch, Cayley, Sylvester,...were as much algebraic geometers as one can get. In fact, CIT as practiced by the classics is inseparable from elimination theory. Maybe a good way to see this would be to look at the two books by Faa di Bruno available on google books: the one on binary forms, and the one on elimiation theory. See also Gordan's papers on symbolic forms of resultants. | |
| Jul 20, 2010 at 22:19 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | I disagree about "there is no difference": even a cursory look at Grace and Young, or another comparable classical book shows that the "classics", if one can indeed lump together so many different strands, were mostly interested in combinatorial and algebraic aspects (e.g. explicit generators and relations for invariants and covariants). If anything, classical invariant theory that I am familiar with is closer to modern representation theory than to algebraic geometry. | |
| Jul 20, 2010 at 18:49 | history | answered | Abdelmalek Abdesselam | CC BY-SA 2.5 |