@robjohn Can I ask a question? If no: Nevermind. If yes: Why do we take a cone in the maximal function and say not a parabolic one. I haven't tried to see what happens.
@JonasTeuwen I don't think that's the main problem. But clearly some people, somewhere, are in dire need of a short quest lecture on How To Ask Homework Questions The Smart Way On The Internet.
The only question is, how do we find out which course where?
(My copy of Underwood Dudley's Mathematical Cranks arrived the other day. So far it's been a more immediately enjoyable read than Kunen's set theory textbook from the same shipment.)
@Potato It's easy - just orthogonalize the two vectors to get from w1, w2 a new orthogonal base w1,w2'. For orthogonal base your argument works: just take neighborhood of 0 with radius 1/2*min(|w1|,|w2'|).
@JonasTeuwen I think that JDH's answer in the thread I linked to above summarizes my opinion on that pretty well.
@MartinSleziak The ping worked from the beginning. The problem is that chat has some problems with multi-line messages. See here (and the messages below and above that for more)
@tb I agree with that post. But sometimes I don't really feel like supplying all details as they should be able to fill them in if they got that far already. That probably amounts to a "bad answer" in JDH-speech.
Heck, sometimes I don't like working out all details if I can just say, "clearly this can be rearranged as a quadratic polynomial in $q$. You can derive the precise coefficients yourself."
@JonasTeuwen Not necessarily so. I believe that JDH mainly makes the point that "hints" often are not very fun to read. It is not like he always gives many details in his answers --- on the contrary, I'd say. But he is extremely good at isolating the main points and techniques involved in a problem and summarizing it, backing it up with good intuition. So I'm sure leaving out some details is perfectly allowed in "JDH-speech".
Of course, a good hint may be worth a thousand words, but often it would be very nice if the answerers elaborated on the idea underlying it: How do you come up with such a hint? What is the basic intuition underlying it?
Yes, but I'm not as good at that as JDH :-). I'll keep in mind that I maybe should mention something about how I got the idea. But usually I don't really know that.
The somewhat idiosyncratic notation for MP narrows it down, but I think it's conceivable that the same formalism (and perhaps summary sheet) is also in use elsewhere.
@JonasTeuwen I figured you wouldn't know (considering your animation of Uhlenbeck's name). =) I'm more hoping that J.M. or tb will look at my comment and give us the answer!
Verbatim copied from the homework (in many cases, homework is just scanned and posted), not typeset (this is not necessary, but still), no motivation, did not acknowledge it as homework.
In any case the policies of the course seem rather strict to me, but maybe this is just some general legal mumbo jumbo universities are to mention somewhere nowadays.
@tb, @Henning So what now? I am starting to write a meta post. Should I carry on? If we decide to do nothing or do something else (or if you are planning to post it on meta), I will be glad to drop it.
@HenningMakholm That would be great, thanks! I see nothing wrong with mentioning it to them and they can decide what they want to do about it. No meta post required, I believe.
@Potato Don't worry :) So you have R-linearly independent points omega_1 and omega_2 in C. Their real and imaginary parts give you a matrix of GL(2,R) (because of linear independence) which gives you a self-homeomorphism of R^2 and the lattice is the image of Z^2 under that homeomorphism. What do you mean by "easier"?
Part of the story untold in the book was that Dudley was subsequently sued for libel by one of the cranks portrayed (even though said crank was only referred to by initials). The case reached the federal appeals level and produced a nice opinion by the always readable Judge Posner.
"even though said crank was only referred to by initials" - on the other hand, some of the afternotes made the task of figuring the identity of the subject(s) a matter of deduction...
I'm sorry to intererupt your scholarly disscusson but has anyone seen my updated post in "Division by 0" ? I added extra clarification & a link at the bottom to a through disscussion
t.b. I got in a rut trying to prove that having 0 as a limit point of the lattice implied a contradiction. I'm not sure if there's a way to push this through to get a proof though - do you think there is?
@Potato I don't see anything easier than re-framing the argument I gave above into a proof by contradiction, which I don't see as a good way of going about it.
