Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science connection constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2014

    Stubby beginning for Moebius transformation.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2014

    Thanks.

    I have added some more cross-links.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2014
    • (edited Mar 22nd 2014)

    Thanks, Urs. I added some more material, but I must have made some subtle syntax error, because for some reason it’s not rendering as it should. Perhaps I’m tired.

    Edit: fixed. I still have no idea what I did wrong, but I did somehow fix whatever it was.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2014

    I made modular group redirect to Möbius transformation and added some more cross-links (also with moduli stack of elliptic curves etc.) This used to redirect to modular theory.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2014

    I added material on the modular group to Moebius transformation, but I see now there’s plenty of overlap with moduli stack of elliptic curves. That’s okay I guess.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2014

    Thanks!!

    (There is currently some syntax error that confuses the parser in the section “Action on hyperbolic space”. I would try to fix it, but I have to dash off right now…)

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014

    Can we generalise from fields to, say, integral domains? Since at the beginning of the article kk is a field, then soon after we have k=k=\mathbb{Z}.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014

    I think we can generalize to commutative rings. When it was first written it was for fields, and then later Urs began adding a bit on the modular group, which caused consideration of k=k = \mathbb{Z}. It shouldn’t surprise me a bit of people consider these things for adeles as well, which aren’t even integral domains.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2014

    I restricted to integral domains because I was wondering for what rings it makes sense to talk about the projective line. Clearly PSL 2(R)PSL_2(R) makes perfect sense for any ring RR.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2014

    It’s a good question. We have an entry projective space which gives a general definition, but there’s also a scheme-theoretic notion of projective line (hence a functor CRingSetCRing \to Set) and it’s not immediately obvious to me what the relation is between these notions. I suppose there ought to be on general principle a Klein-geometry approach as well, where we are first given a concrete group of transformations, and we extract a geometry from what it is the group action preserves (e.g., it could be cross-ratio or something like it).

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)