Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Answer

Replaced dead link with internet archive link, and added title of paper to guard against future link issues.
Source Link
edit approved Mar 29, 2021 at 7:21
Mark Schultz-Wu
edit approved Mar 29, 2021 at 7:21
Mark Schultz-Wu
  • 2.2k
  • 11
  • 20

You should say where you found this, and what $q$ is.

Meanwhile, this resembles Lemma 2(ii) in WATSONWatson's Transformations of a Quadratic Form which do not increase the Class Number. The main differences are Watson has your $m=n$ and he allows your $q$ to be any positive integer, which may matter as far as a possible factor of 2. If you give more detail of why you think this is a theorem and why you care, I might put in more time.

You should say where you found this, and what $q$ is.

Meanwhile, this resembles Lemma 2(ii) in WATSON. The main differences are Watson has your $m=n$ and he allows your $q$ to be any positive integer, which may matter as far as a possible factor of 2. If you give more detail of why you think this is a theorem and why you care, I might put in more time.

You should say where you found this, and what $q$ is.

Meanwhile, this resembles Lemma 2(ii) in Watson's Transformations of a Quadratic Form which do not increase the Class Number. The main differences are Watson has your $m=n$ and he allows your $q$ to be any positive integer, which may matter as far as a possible factor of 2. If you give more detail of why you think this is a theorem and why you care, I might put in more time.

Source Link
Will Jagy
Will Jagy
  • 25.7k
  • 2
  • 65
  • 121

You should say where you found this, and what $q$ is.

Meanwhile, this resembles Lemma 2(ii) in WATSON. The main differences are Watson has your $m=n$ and he allows your $q$ to be any positive integer, which may matter as far as a possible factor of 2. If you give more detail of why you think this is a theorem and why you care, I might put in more time.