Complex Powers of an Elliptic Operator

  • Thread starter Thread starter unchained1978
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Complex Operator
unchained1978
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
There is a paper written by R.T. Seeley in the Proceedings of Symposia Pure Mathematics that I've seen cited by several papers I've been reading, but I can't find it anywhere. The citation given is
R. SEELEY, Complex Powers of an Elliptic Operator, “Singular Integrals (Proc.
Symp. Pure Math., Chicago, 1966),” 288-307, Amer. Math. Sot., Providence, R. I.,
1967.

If anyone at all could help me find it I would greatly appreciate it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks, although it doesn't look like I can access that paper from here.
 
Unfortunately I'm only aware of hard copies of this paper (in the Proceedings book referenced), and I've also been looking for it. If you contact a library which has the book they should be willing to scan it for you.
 
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
It is well known that a vector space always admits an algebraic (Hamel) basis. This is a theorem that follows from Zorn's lemma based on the Axiom of Choice (AC). Now consider any specific instance of vector space. Since the AC axiom may or may not be included in the underlying set theory, might there be examples of vector spaces in which an Hamel basis actually doesn't exist ?
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
39
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top