Timeline for About nuclear-by-exact extensions
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 10, 2021 at 13:56 | comment | added | JBrude | By the way, sofic-by-amenable I barely sure that mean subgroup sofic and quotient amenable, so I thing that I "traslated" from group theory terminology. Thank everyone for the comments and answers | |
| Feb 10, 2021 at 13:54 | comment | added | JBrude | Well. I'm working mainly in group theory. As English is my second language, I assume that I was wrong with the concep. In spanish we don't use the formula A-by-B to refer these things. | |
| Feb 9, 2021 at 17:28 | comment | added | Jamie Gabe | @YemonChoi I agree that there is disagreement/variation in the literature, but I also believe that there's only one of these which is correct :) | |
| Feb 9, 2021 at 16:07 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @JamieGabe Digression, but if you ever look at the literature on group theory you will find quite a lot of initial disagreement/variation about X-by-Y versus Y-by-X :) I agree that what you've gone with is the accepted norm these days, AFAICT | |
| Feb 9, 2021 at 12:42 | comment | added | JBrude | Thank you very much for the answers. I edited the title as Jaimie adviced. | |
| Feb 9, 2021 at 12:39 | vote | accept | JBrude | ||
| Feb 9, 2021 at 9:40 | history | edited | Jamie Gabe | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 46 characters in body
|
| Feb 9, 2021 at 9:37 | comment | added | Jamie Gabe | The title of the question should also be "nuclear-by-exact" instead of "exact-by-nuclear" since it is called an extension of $B$ by $I$ (quotient-by-ideal). | |
| Feb 9, 2021 at 9:23 | history | edited | Jamie Gabe | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2250 characters in body
|
| Feb 9, 2021 at 9:20 | comment | added | Jamie Gabe | I'll just add it again :) | |
| Feb 9, 2021 at 9:18 | comment | added | Mateusz Wasilewski | It's a good thing that I can still look up the more interesting version of your answer in the revision history. | |
| Feb 9, 2021 at 9:17 | comment | added | Jamie Gabe | Thanks, Mateusz, I read what I wanted to read (and what is a much harder result). I changed my response to address the actual question! | |
| Feb 9, 2021 at 9:14 | history | edited | Jamie Gabe | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1805 characters in body
|
| Feb 9, 2021 at 8:59 | comment | added | Mateusz Wasilewski | Hi Jamie, that's a very nice and useful answer. But it seems like an answer to a slightly different question -- the OP wanted the ideal to be exact and the quotient to be nuclear. | |
| Feb 9, 2021 at 8:40 | history | answered | Jamie Gabe | CC BY-SA 4.0 |