Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry 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 homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics 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 science set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexStubby beginning for [[Moebius transformation]].

   Stubby beginning for Moebius transformation.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks. I have added some more cross-links.

   Thanks.

   I have added some more cross-links.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2014
   • (edited Mar 22nd 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks, 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.

   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.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 5th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI 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]]_.

   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.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeApr 5th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI 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.

   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.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 5th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks!! (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...)

   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…)

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexCan we generalise from fields to, say, integral domains? Since at the beginning of the article $k$ is a field, then soon after we have $k=\mathbb{Z}$.

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

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI 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 $k = \mathbb{Z}$. It shouldn't surprise me a bit of people consider these things for adeles as well, which aren't even integral domains.

   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 $k = \mathbb{Z}$. It shouldn’t surprise me a bit of people consider these things for adeles as well, which aren’t even integral domains.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeApr 7th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexI restricted to integral domains because I was wondering for what rings it makes sense to talk about the projective line. Clearly $PSL_2(R)$ makes perfect sense for any ring $R$.

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

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2014
    • PermaLink
    Author: Todd_Trimble
    Format: MarkdownItexIt'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 $CRing \to Set$) 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).

    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 $CRing \to Set$) 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).