Timeline for Reference for Kronecker-Weyl theorem in full generality
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 29, 2020 at 5:36 | comment | added | Günter Rote | I found that the continuous version is already in Weyl's 1916 paper (Theorem 5, p.319-320) without detailed proof, for the rationally independent case, and also the monographs contain separate chapters about it. Weyl writes (after the related Theorem 6, on p.321): "Es würde keine Schwierigkeiten machen, die möglichen Ausnahmefälle, [...], vollständig durchzudiskutieren." (It would not pose any difficulties to discuss the potential exceptional cases completely.) | |
| Oct 25, 2020 at 6:44 | history | edited | Günter Rote | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed typo
|
| Oct 22, 2020 at 8:35 | history | edited | Günter Rote | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
embellishments
|
| Oct 22, 2020 at 8:08 | history | edited | Günter Rote | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
made the proof direct, small fixes
|
| Oct 22, 2020 at 8:08 | comment | added | Peter Humphries | Thanks, this is much more readable (to me, at least). | |
| Oct 22, 2020 at 8:06 | comment | added | Günter Rote | I have expanded, for example by adding the definition of a lattice. Unfortunately, the English wikipedia treats only lattices of full rank $r$, The German wikipedia <de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitter_(Mathematik)> is more accurate. I looks like some motives are shared between your proof and mine, but we are using different languages. What I call a linear equation (with integer coefficients) seems to correspond to what you call a character. | |
| Oct 22, 2020 at 8:01 | history | edited | Günter Rote | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
expanded a little bit, fixed an error, change of notation
|
| Oct 22, 2020 at 7:27 | history | edited | Günter Rote | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added a proof of a missing step
|
| Oct 22, 2020 at 2:15 | comment | added | Peter Humphries | This isn't very clear; can you write it out in (a lot) more detail? Already the beginning of the second paragraph is quite ambiguous without more precise notation. | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 23:51 | history | answered | Günter Rote | CC BY-SA 4.0 |