The Geometry of the Exterior Derivation
Christian Reinbothe
this was "The Geometry of Cartan's Derivation". I got no answer from you.
(Perhaps you did not know "Cartan's Derivation")
So I try it again:
"Cartan's Derivation" is simply the "Exterior Derivation"
I want to publish a new result. I hope, you find it
interesting. If you do know the result or have any
comments, let me know ...:-).
Please choose
http://WWW.Reinbothe.DE/english/mathPreprints.htm
and klick on the link
"The Geometrie of Cartan's Derivation"
Greetings Christian
Greetings Christian
JEMebius
newsgroup audience.
As a first step to make your papers more readable and palatable, please replace
abbreviations like "Theo.", "Pre.", "Ass.", "Rem.", "Supp." by the full words.
Perhaps I am not the only person who incurs a seven-day itch each time when reading
all-too-heavily compressed mathematics texts.
No hard feelings, of course, just an effort at constructive criticism.
Good luck: Johan E. Mebius
Axel Vogt
Hopefully you find it not too discouraging, but I am
almost sure you will find all that in a more general
setting in Bourbaki, Algebre, Chap 1 - 3. However I
have only 'scanned' it ... may be the following is
also helpful http://www1.mengr.tamu.edu/rbowen/
Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
Your paper on "canonicality" is strange...
First you establish that the "canonical
basis" of R^n is not "canonical", which
is really a truism.
Then you go on to show in the next section that
the neutral element of a group is
not "canonical" which, for every sensible
meaning of "canonical", simply cannot be true.
In every group there is exactly one element
which is neutral for the group product,
and that is as canonical as you can get.
Your "proof", though, consists in changing
the group product. But a group is a pair (G, *)
of a set and a product *. If you change the
product, then you've changed the group!
Your next section's conclusion is that
"there is no canonical generator for
a cyclic group of order >2". This is
of course true, because the automorphism
group A of a cyclic group simply-transitively
permutes the generatos, and A is never trivial
if the group has order >2. But the argument
you give is completely misguided: you again change
the product in the group, thereby changing
the group itself.
You are indeed correct that there is no real
definition for "canonical" encompassing all
the meanings with which that word is used in
mathematics. But that observation applies
to pretty much every mathematica term!
-- m
Angus Rodgers
<mariano.su...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 19, 4:28 pm, "Christian Reinbothe" <Christian.Reinbo...@T-
>
>> Please choose
>>
>> http://WWW.Reinbothe.DE/english/mathPreprints.htm
>
>Your paper on "canonicality" is strange...
>
>First you establish that the "canonical
>basis" of R^n is not "canonical", which
>is really a truism.
>
>Then you go on to show in the next section that
>the neutral element of a group is
>not "canonical" which, for every sensible
>meaning of "canonical", simply cannot be true.
>
>In every group there is exactly one element
>which is neutral for the group product,
>and that is as canonical as you can get.
>Your "proof", though, consists in changing
>the group product. But a group is a pair (G, *)
>of a set and a product *. If you change the
>product, then you've changed the group!
The OP might appreciate these links:
<http://eom.springer.de/h/h046760.htm>
"Heaps and semi-heaps"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heap_(mathematics)>
"Heap (mathematics)"
--
Angus Rodgers
Christian Reinbothe
"JEMebius" <jeme...@xs4all.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:49248242...@xs4all.nl...
Thanks. I will Do.
Greetings Christian
Christian Reinbothe
"Axel Vogt" <&nor...@axelvogt.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:6ojg5jF...@mid.individual.net...
I will verify this. I need some time...
Greetings Christian
Christian Reinbothe
I could not find it in Bourbaki.
Greetings Christian