Reputation
Next tag badge:
965/1000 score
226/200 answers
Badges
18 83 146
Newest
 Necromancer
Impact
~329k people reached

Nov
27
answered What kind of studies are this?
Nov
27
comment Field at which $f(x)$ splits
@MaryStar It sure is bud!
Nov
27
answered Field at which $f(x)$ splits
Nov
26
awarded  Good Question
Nov
22
awarded  Enlightened
Nov
22
awarded  Nice Answer
Nov
21
awarded  Nice Answer
Nov
21
asked Relating maximal elements of downsets to minimal elements of the complement
Nov
20
revised A more swift method for Conjugation Classes
added 18 characters in body
Nov
20
answered A more swift method for Conjugation Classes
Nov
20
comment Does a four-variable analog of the Hall-Witt identity exist?
@GrigoryM So I've read the paper in that link a couple times, and I'm still having trouble sorting it out. I guess I just don't speak topologist real good. My hope for this question, I suppose, is to find a simpler, alternative proof, especially considering that what he proved seems stronger than what I was looking for at first.
Nov
20
comment Does a four-variable analog of the Hall-Witt identity exist?
I must add, your proof at the end is excellent, precisely what I was limply flailing at in my progress, yet stated (and proved) much more cleanly. Very slick. Thank you for this.
Nov
20
comment Does a four-variable analog of the Hall-Witt identity exist?
Am I far wrong in supposing that in fact you had some such additional conditions in mind when you formulated your question? You are not wrong! Your conditions are indeed what I had in mind. The reason I (rather conspicuously) omitted them from the OP is that I was still uncertain of this choice. $n=2$ only uses commutators, then we add in conjugations for $n=3$, so, maybe there was some natural thing to add for $n=4$. My hope was that, by exploring the question, I could nail down the condition precisely, either finding some other operation(s), or convincing myself that none should be there.
Nov
19
awarded  Favorite Question
Nov
18
revised Examples where it is easier to prove more than less
added 44 characters in body
Nov
15
revised Examples where it is easier to prove more than less
added 2 characters in body
Nov
15
comment Examples where it is easier to prove more than less
I'm not sure I agree that it's a duplicate. I guess they're technically equivalent, but proving a generalization isn't spiritually the same as having to prove a bunch of stuff in order to get something smaller- like driving all over the city just to go one block, because the road was closed. At least that is my opinion, after some thought.
Nov
15
revised Examples where it is easier to prove more than less
deleted 2 characters in body
Nov
15
revised Examples where it is easier to prove more than less
added 41 characters in body
Nov
15
revised Examples where it is easier to prove more than less
added 136 characters in body