Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a254ad2e6c9af49c

Jump to content

Talk:Pythagorean field

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Svennik in topic Can somebody verify the exact sequence?

Ito

[edit]

The Ito reference does not seem to work. Tkuvho (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Finding mistakes

[edit]

Here it says that

but if F is not ordered, then it doesn't have any Euclidean closures.

  • If ab is not a square in F then there is an order on F for which a, b have different signs.[2]

But if F is the complex numbers, then it doesn't have any such order.

I've looked at the definitions, and this should in fact be infinity when F is the real numbers. I'm not as sure of this, so somebody ought to check. The definition of general u-invariant is stated unclearly, but if you understand an element of a Witt group to be a coset consisting of quadratic forms, then for F = real numbers, I think the value of u(F) is indeed 0. --Svennik (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

  1. Efrat (2005) p.178
  2. Lam (2005) p.293
  3. Lam (2005) p.410

Svennik (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can somebody verify the exact sequence?

[edit]

Since I've found other mistakes in that section, I'm wondering if the exact sequence is a true one. It might well be, but somebody should check. Somebody should also follow the citations because other incorrect claims in this article have been backed up by (mis-)citations. --Svennik (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The "Witt rings" here are really groups. Since this is an exact sequence of abelian groups, it should say Witt group. --Svennik (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply