Timeline for What does "linearly disjoint" mean for abstract field extensions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2021 at 12:56 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed arxiv front-end link and gave title
|
| Dec 10, 2009 at 1:39 | history | edited | Greg Kuperberg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 18 characters in body
|
| Dec 9, 2009 at 19:01 | vote | accept | Andrew Critch | ||
| Dec 9, 2009 at 19:01 | history | edited | Greg Kuperberg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 479 characters in body; added 4 characters in body
|
| Dec 9, 2009 at 19:00 | comment | added | Andrew Critch | I was missing something, and this clears up everything, thank-you! | |
| Dec 9, 2009 at 18:40 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | I now support Greg's answer. It makes clear though that the "abstract linear disjointness" is not a straightforward generalization of "ambient linear disjointness" for transcendental extensions. | |
| Dec 9, 2009 at 16:39 | history | edited | Greg Kuperberg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Extended answer
|
| Dec 9, 2009 at 7:42 | comment | added | Andrew Critch | I don't think your last sentence is correct for extensions of infinite degree, because then I don't think an injective map to a compositum $E \otimes_k F \to E.F$ is necessarily surjective, in which case I don't see how to infer the tensor product is a field. Am I missing something? | |
| Dec 9, 2009 at 7:24 | history | answered | Greg Kuperberg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |