Because the definition of connection in my mind is : "a bilinear connection satisfying certain properties."
I don't know what horizantal/ vertical component mean exactly.
what do "D" to a p-form for example?
I need a definition or explanation using indices at first, because i am trying to...
Can you give me the definition of exterior covariant derivative or any reference web page ?
Wiki does not involve enough info.I am not able to do calculation with respect to given definition there.
Thanks in advance
The first one is fine
For the second just use definition of ^2
(a*b)^2= (a*b)*(a*b)
and definition of abelian groups i.e cahnging places of elements does not effeect anything
I was searching for the definition of localization of a ring .
I came across the definition given at
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Localization.html
If i take S as an ideal, the requirement 1€S make S=R.
I am confused here
how can i define localization of a ring at an ideal.
A 'nonempty' subset of a topological space is irreducible if it can not be written as union of its two proper closed subsets.
Because of the word 'nonempty' the argument in my first post is useless. And while writing second post i took definition of reducible as not being irreducible
Because in algebraic geometry lots of things are explained in terms of categories and functors.Not want deeply learning this stuff but understanding when it is used in definitions thm s etc.
I am only familiar to undergrad abstract algebra and want to learn category theory.
which book or website do you suggest for a quick start?
thanks in advance
yes.that is the answer.i was careless as always.
another question then: can we say empty set is reducible then. since it is not irreducible
Or do we exclude this set from the discussion of reducibility/irreducibility?
(my guess is second choice is less problematic)
In Hartshorne's book definiton of a dimension is given as follows:
İf X is a t.s. , dim(X) is the supremum of the integers n s.t. there exist a chain
Z_0 \subsetneq Z_1...\subsetneq Z_n
of distinct irreducible closed subsets of X
My question is:
Can we conclude directly that any...
So i have to think two inertial frames: one of observer's and the other one synchronized stars'. And therefore only the bulbs which are at the same distance to the observer will flash simultaneously.and the further ones will flash later
Is it correct?
ok. But what changes then relative to the observer? The observer should see everything same. If it was so ,then i think rindler would not use this as a problem.there must be some poinnt that i missed
Homework Statement
this is a problem from rindler
Suppose there are flush bulbs fixed at all lattice points of some inertial frame and suppose they all flash at once .what actually seen by an observer sitting at the origin?
Homework Equations
The Attempt at a Solution
i don'...