155 reputation
6
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 7 months
seen Apr 23 at 7:32

Jul
2
awarded  Curious
Apr
22
comment Conditions to ensure the chain homotopy category $K(\mathcal{A})$ is abelian?
@ZhenLin I guess I'm mostly curious if there are cases where it is in fact abelian.
Apr
22
asked Conditions to ensure the chain homotopy category $K(\mathcal{A})$ is abelian?
Nov
17
comment If $T$ has an adjoint, why is $T(X\times Y)\simeq T(X)\times T(Y)$?
Thanks Stefan. What is $\eta_B$?
Nov
17
asked If $T$ has an adjoint, why is $T(X\times Y)\simeq T(X)\times T(Y)$?
Nov
17
accepted What is meant by a natural morphism $T(X\times Y)\to T(X)\times T(Y)$?
Nov
17
comment What is meant by a natural morphism $T(X\times Y)\to T(X)\times T(Y)$?
Thank you Smoore.
Nov
17
comment What is meant by a natural morphism $T(X\times Y)\to T(X)\times T(Y)$?
Thank you @Martin.
Nov
17
asked What is meant by a natural morphism $T(X\times Y)\to T(X)\times T(Y)$?
Nov
17
comment Confusion in Burnside's proof that any $2$-generated group of exponent $3$ is finite?
The proof is from Burnside's 1902 paper "On an unanswered question on discontinuous groups."
Nov
17
accepted Confusion in Burnside's proof that any $2$-generated group of exponent $3$ is finite?
Nov
9
comment Confusion in Burnside's proof that any $2$-generated group of exponent $3$ is finite?
I'm aware that it's not necessary, but I'd still like to understand the details out of curiosity.
Nov
9
asked Confusion in Burnside's proof that any $2$-generated group of exponent $3$ is finite?
Feb
5
comment On the equivalence relation in a right Ore domain.
Dear rschwieb sorry for my delay! I hadn't logged in for months. Thank you for writing that out.
Feb
5
accepted On the equivalence relation in a right Ore domain.
Jul
2
revised Why is multiplication well defined in this ring with the Ore condition?
added 13 characters in body
Jul
2
revised Why is multiplication well defined in this ring with the Ore condition?
added 457 characters in body
Jul
1
asked Why is multiplication well defined in this ring with the Ore condition?
Jun
30
comment On the equivalence relation in a right Ore domain.
Thanks rschwieb. I'm using your definition of $\sim$, and I see that $\sim$ is an equivalence relation, and I'm still assuming the common right multiple property. I have addition defined as $a/b+c/d=(ad_1+cb_1)/m$ where $m=bd_1=db_1\neq 0$, and $(a/b)(c/d)=ac_1/db_1$ where $cb_1=bc_1$ and $b_1\neq 0$, but I've struggled and don't know how to show these are well-defined. Do you know how to show that they are?
Jun
29
revised On the equivalence relation in a right Ore domain.
added 16 characters in body