175 reputation
9
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 7 months
seen Jul 31 at 15:15

Dec
6
revised Divergence of the series $2^{-1/n}$
added 212 characters in body
Dec
6
asked Divergence of the series $2^{-1/n}$
Nov
22
accepted If $f$ is entire and $|f|\geq 1$, then show $f$ is constant.
Nov
22
asked If $f$ is entire and $|f|\geq 1$, then show $f$ is constant.
Nov
18
comment $\left<2,x\right>$ is a maximal ideal of $\Bbb Z[x]$
Oh, I think I see it now. Are you thinking of using the 1st iso theorem? If I did the work correctly, the kernel of this mapping $\left<2,x\right>$, correct?
Nov
18
comment $\left<2,x\right>$ is a maximal ideal of $\Bbb Z[x]$
I'm sorry, but the notation here "$\widehat{P(0)}$" means what exactly? I like that you said this because I thought about this but didn't think it would work.
Nov
18
accepted $\left<2,x\right>$ is a maximal ideal of $\Bbb Z[x]$
Nov
18
comment $\left<2,x\right>$ is a maximal ideal of $\Bbb Z[x]$
I see! This problem has been bugging me for a couple of days. Thank you for the assistance.
Nov
18
comment $\left<2,x\right>$ is a maximal ideal of $\Bbb Z[x]$
That's the thing, I'm not sure how to make that 2nd isomorphism work. Should I just do it from straight definition?
Nov
18
asked $\left<2,x\right>$ is a maximal ideal of $\Bbb Z[x]$
Nov
17
comment How to show $\mathbb{Z}[w]/(2,w) \simeq \mathbb{Z}_2$?
I had a similar question to this and this response was insightful. I follow all of the steps except for the very first isomorphism. It looks like the 3rd isomorphism theorem but (2) isn't an ideal in $Z[w]$. Do you mind elaborating on how you arrived at the first iso from above? Again, this helped me see this problem clearer other than this snag.
Nov
9
accepted Riemann Integrable Functions Sequence
Nov
9
asked Riemann Integrable Functions Sequence
Nov
6
accepted Squeeze Theorem conclusion
Nov
4
revised Squeeze Theorem conclusion
deleted 135 characters in body
Nov
4
comment Squeeze Theorem conclusion
Oh shoot you're right! I wasn't thinking of the right function.
Nov
4
asked Squeeze Theorem conclusion
Oct
8
awarded  Popular Question
Aug
26
comment Proof of Non-Ordering of Complex Field
I'm such an idiot. I didn't read the "for each $x \epsilon F$."
Aug
26
comment Proof of Non-Ordering of Complex Field
"The square of 0 is not $−1$" but what does that have to do with finding a subset of $C$? $0+0 \epsilon P, 0*0 \epsilon P$ So doesn't this work?