Reputation
2,408
Top tag
Next privilege 2,500 Rep.
Create tag synonyms
Badges
2 9 39
Newest
 Revival
Impact
~25k people reached

Jul
1
reviewed Approve Unusual result to the addition
Jun
25
reviewed Reject Question on Math.floor on negative number
Jun
18
reviewed Approve Find the radius of a circle based off of its intersection with another
Jun
18
reviewed Approve Can $2^{M^N}+M^{N^2}$, where $M$ and $N$ are odd primes, never be a prime?
Jun
14
comment Soft Question about International Graduate Schools
While you are at it, the title of your question should reflect your actual question, and not just a list "tags".
Jun
14
comment (Non-Hopfian) groups that only have quotients that are themselves or the trivial group.
@user10193 I have never really done much with wreath products, at least explicitly. I will see if I can get the direct limit to work. It seems promising.
Jun
14
comment (Non-Hopfian) groups that only have quotients that are themselves or the trivial group.
@AsafKaragila Great! I don't see why they would be needed either, it seems good.
Jun
14
comment (Non-Hopfian) groups that only have quotients that are themselves or the trivial group.
@AsafKaragila You expect them being finitely generated should still prevent it from happening still without choice? I was wondering that too, they "feel concrete" enough that I also feel that one could get around choice since they do have finitely many generators, but I don't know. (The Prüfer groups are countable btw) I will be trying to go to bed, so may not respond right away.
Jun
14
asked (Non-Hopfian) groups that only have quotients that are themselves or the trivial group.
Jun
14
comment Higman group with 3 generators is trivial
I did not realize I sent the above comment, I was actually going to double check it before sending it, and I did find a mistake.
Jun
14
comment Higman group with 3 generators is trivial
What are you looking for in a geometric proof? For example you mention using van Kampen diagrams, and I am sure one could "van Kampenfy" a known proof, but I have a feeling it would not be any more illuminating. I have been playing with this, hoping for an to come across an illuminating idea or strategy, and in playing with van Kampen diagrams, I believe I came across a proof (will have to double check it), but it is essentially just sticking relations together, and I don't have an overarching idea that makes it illuminating
Jun
11
answered Why $G$ is not free?
Jun
10
reviewed Approve $3x + 2 > 8$ solved not using order of operation?
Jun
8
comment Is the infinite dihedral group an inverse limit of the finite dihedral groups?
I don't see how that is isomorphic to the infinite dihedral group.
Jun
7
reviewed Reject Solving the equation in natural numbers
Jun
7
awarded  Revival
Jun
7
awarded  Nice Question
May
30
accepted Getting free groups of finite/countable rank from certain generating sets
May
30
answered Getting free groups of finite/countable rank from certain generating sets
May
29
comment Has the Collatz Conjecture been proven to be unprovable?
Not that vixra claims to peer review... I don't think. The point still stands, one could just look for more "journals" that claim to peer review, like this one.