Timeline for Iterated calculation of determinants
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2013 at 17:15 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | darij: At the very least, you are right that this needs more argument. I will try to find time to try to think about how to try to supply that argument. | |
| Jun 4, 2013 at 17:10 | comment | added | darij grinberg | By the way, the parameter space for this question is not affine 16-space, since the matrices are required to commute. The variety of tuples of commuting matrices being (generally) complicated (I believe), I am not sure if this argument can be salvaged. (Exercise: count the weasel words in the preceding sentence.) | |
| Dec 11, 2010 at 14:15 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | @Thierry: it may well be the case that none of the matrices is diagonalizable over the initial field. For example, suppose all 4 matrices are rotation matrices in $\mathbb R^2$. | |
| Dec 11, 2010 at 14:14 | comment | added | darij grinberg | Huh? He needs it for the eigenvalues to exist. | |
| Dec 10, 2010 at 18:47 | comment | added | Thierry Zell | I don't believe you need the bigger field for the diagonalization step. | |
| Dec 10, 2010 at 16:41 | history | edited | Steven Landsburg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
changed "open subset" to "open subset of 16-space"
|
| Dec 10, 2010 at 16:35 | history | answered | Steven Landsburg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |