Timeline for There is no lattice in PSL(2,R) which contains PSL(2,Z) properly?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 24, 2013 at 11:09 | comment | added | C.S. | @DavidLoeffler It's quite surprising that Modular forms are taught at the undergraduate level. Wouldn't it be too hard on students? | |
| Apr 5, 2012 at 19:06 | answer | added | Igor Rivin | timeline score: 10 | |
| Apr 5, 2012 at 17:42 | answer | added | Jim Humphreys | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 5, 2012 at 17:19 | history | edited | Jim Humphreys |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 5, 2012 at 11:38 | history | edited | Marc Palm | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted math symbols from title
|
| Mar 15, 2012 at 18:39 | history | edited | Guntram | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Apr 7, 2011 at 7:55 | vote | accept | Marc Palm | ||
| Apr 5, 2011 at 7:57 | answer | added | S. Carnahan♦ | timeline score: 12 | |
| Apr 5, 2011 at 7:38 | history | edited | Marc Palm | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 61 characters in body; added 13 characters in body
|
| Apr 5, 2011 at 7:38 | comment | added | Marc Palm | So I guess, it is reasonable for $G$ reductive!? | |
| Apr 5, 2011 at 7:25 | comment | added | David Loeffler | I remember setting this (or, rather, the same question with SL(2) in place of PSL(2)) as an exercise to an undergraduate modular forms class once. Nobody solved it :-) If I remember correctly, the argument goes: first convince yourself that any such lattice must be contained in PSL(2, Q); then use the fact that PSL(2, Zp) is maximal compact in PSL(2, Qp) for every prime p. | |
| Apr 5, 2011 at 7:19 | history | edited | Marc Palm | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Apr 5, 2011 at 7:14 | history | edited | Marc Palm | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
edited body; added 2 characters in body
|
| Apr 5, 2011 at 7:08 | history | asked | Marc Palm | CC BY-SA 2.5 |