Timeline for Alternating multilinear invariants of GL(n) on End (k^n)
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Dec 2, 2023 at 10:21 | history | suggested | The Amplitwist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed broken link to Wikipedia
|
| Dec 2, 2023 at 8:56 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 2, 2023 at 10:21 | |||||
| Mar 5, 2012 at 15:49 | vote | accept | darij grinberg | ||
| Mar 5, 2012 at 8:54 | answer | added | Vladimir Dotsenko | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 17:02 | answer | added | Vladimir Dotsenko | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 15:08 | comment | added | darij grinberg | Yes. It is the linear independence that I don't understand. | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 12:33 | comment | added | Theo Johnson-Freyd | So that I understand the question, the point is that $\Omega_p$ is an odd-degree form if $p$ is odd (and already $0$ if $p$ is even), and so there cannot be any terms of form $\Omega_p \wedge \Omega_p = -\Omega_p \wedge\Omega_p$. So it follows that your sequences are a spanning set, and the only thing missing is the independence? Put another way, the question is why the ring of invariants is a polynomial algebra (on odd variables) and not a quotient thereof? | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 3:20 | history | asked | darij grinberg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |