Timeline for Is there a preferable convention for defining the wedge product?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 4, 2021 at 8:55 | comment | added | Alexey Muranov | IMO an important detail is left out: what are the definitions of $Alt$ in Kobayashi-Nomizu and in Spivak? Are they the same? | |
| Oct 17, 2021 at 12:48 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 18, 2021 at 20:08 | |||||
| Oct 17, 2021 at 12:20 | answer | added | bernardorim | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 5:26 | answer | added | Michael_1812 | timeline score: 3 | |
| S Oct 29, 2017 at 6:39 | history | suggested | mma | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Bug in Spivak's formula
|
| Oct 29, 2017 at 5:54 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 29, 2017 at 6:39 | |||||
| Apr 20, 2016 at 9:26 | answer | added | Gustavo Granja | timeline score: 10 | |
| Feb 22, 2013 at 14:38 | answer | added | Martin Gisser | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 2, 2012 at 2:06 | history | edited | MTS |
Added exterior-algebra tag
|
|
| Feb 5, 2011 at 21:21 | history | edited | Mikhail Bondarko |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 5, 2011 at 19:40 | answer | added | Qfwfq | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 5, 2011 at 15:06 | answer | added | Donu Arapura | timeline score: 16 | |
| Feb 5, 2011 at 8:17 | vote | accept | agt | ||
| S Feb 4, 2011 at 23:59 | vote | accept | agt | ||
| Feb 5, 2011 at 8:17 | |||||
| Feb 4, 2011 at 23:59 | vote | accept | agt | ||
| S Feb 4, 2011 at 23:59 | |||||
| Feb 4, 2011 at 23:33 | answer | added | MTS | timeline score: 58 | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 22:32 | vote | accept | agt | ||
| Feb 4, 2011 at 23:59 | |||||
| Feb 4, 2011 at 21:51 | comment | added | Donu Arapura | Yes, sorry the relation is mod$\alpha\otimes \alpha=0$, and $\wedge$ is the induced product. Anyway, Greg's answer is much more thorough. | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 20:00 | answer | added | Dan Lee | timeline score: -8 | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 19:53 | answer | added | Greg Kuperberg | timeline score: 54 | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 19:45 | history | edited | agt |
added tag
|
|
| Feb 4, 2011 at 19:26 | comment | added | agt | Excuse me, I do not understand, I should not take the quotient of the tensor algebra by the relation $\alpha\otimes\alpha=0$? | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 19:09 | comment | added | Donu Arapura | Although, I should add that it sometimes convenient. | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 18:54 | comment | added | Donu Arapura | In my opinion, you are better defining the exterior algebra as the quotient of tensor algebra by the relation $\alpha\wedge \alpha=0$. Forcing it inside the tensor algebra is ugly and unnatural. | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 18:47 | history | edited | agt | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 299 characters in body; added 1 characters in body
|
| Feb 4, 2011 at 18:31 | comment | added | agt | At least Kobayashi-Nomizu and Bourbaki use different conventions. | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 18:25 | comment | added | Suresh Venkat | what are the choices here ? | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 18:17 | history | asked | agt | CC BY-SA 2.5 |