Timeline for Basic results with three or more hypotheses
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2010 at 9:04 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | @Pete: I prefer to specify the category in which we take isomorphisms if it is not too inconvenient and if there is some risk of ambiguity. I decided it was a habit worth cultivating to reduce the chance of error in my own research. | |
| Oct 23, 2010 at 8:54 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | @Noah: I concede that the theorem you state is more general, and that the statement I gave is typically found as a corollary of it. However, I think there is independent merit in characterizing a field that we already know and love, and in that case, "algebraically closed" is no longer part of the setting. | |
| Oct 23, 2010 at 6:35 | comment | added | Alex B. | I guess that Scott wanted to underline the fact that such fields need not be topologically isomorphic. | |
| Oct 23, 2010 at 2:15 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Scott: since we're talking about language: I'm curious what the "ring-theoretically" is doing in your sentence. If you took it out, then to me the meaning and the clarity are completely unchanged. What's your take on it? | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 22:33 | comment | added | Noah Snyder | I think it's better to think of this theorem as: "Any two algebraically closed fields of the same characteristic and transcendence degree are isomorphic." Then "algebraically closed" is part of the setting, not the sort of hypothesis Gowers is looking for. | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 16:19 | history | answered | S. Carnahan♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |