tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (A post) 2018-11-04T13:52:29-08:00 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/ Lussumo Vanilla & Feed Publisher awllower comments on "A post" (13170) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/948/a-post/?Focus=13170#Comment_13170 2011-02-08T20:17:50-08:00 2018-11-04T13:52:29-08:00 awllower http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/498/ Well, I didn't have enough reputation points at that time. And thank you for telling me how the transformation works. In any case, thank you. And thank you for telling me how the transformation works.
In any case, thank you.]]>
voloch comments on "A post" (13169) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/948/a-post/?Focus=13169#Comment_13169 2011-02-08T20:14:31-08:00 2018-11-04T13:52:29-08:00 voloch http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/211/ This is not an appropriate discussion for meta. This could have been asked in the comments of the post in question. Ryan Reich comments on "A post" (13168) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/948/a-post/?Focus=13168#Comment_13168 2011-02-08T19:27:20-08:00 2018-11-04T13:52:29-08:00 Ryan Reich http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/434/ The coefficient of $x^n$ is $a^{n/(n - 1)}$, while that of $x$ is $a * a^{1/(n - 1)} = a^{n/(n - 1)}$, so in canceling one, you cancel both. The coefficient of $x^n$ is $a^{n/(n - 1)}$, while that of $x$ is $a * a^{1/(n - 1)} = a^{n/(n - 1)}$, so in canceling one, you cancel both.

]]>
Valerio Talamanca comments on "A post" (13167) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/948/a-post/?Focus=13167#Comment_13167 2011-02-08T19:27:13-08:00 2018-11-04T13:52:29-08:00 Valerio Talamanca http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/492/ in fact they are both 1, since the transformation proposed has the effect of making the leading coefficent and the coefficent of x equal. awllower comments on "A post" (13166) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/948/a-post/?Focus=13166#Comment_13166 2011-02-08T19:01:51-08:00 2018-11-04T13:52:29-08:00 awllower http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/498/ But he required that both the leading coefficient and the coefficient of x are 1, didn't him? Gerry Myerson comments on "A post" (13150) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/948/a-post/?Focus=13150#Comment_13150 2011-02-08T04:08:30-08:00 2018-11-04T13:52:29-08:00 Gerry Myerson http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/370/ It makes the leading coefficient not 1, but then you just divide by that coefficient to get a polynomial of the desired form, no? awllower comments on "A post" (13147) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/948/a-post/?Focus=13147#Comment_13147 2011-02-08T02:36:36-08:00 2018-11-04T13:52:29-08:00 awllower http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/498/ I have read a post in MOhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/48855/galois-theory-generalization-of-abels-theorem-better-versionand found a somewhat strange answer, i.e. the only answer.The answer says ... http://mathoverflow.net/questions/48855/galois-theory-generalization-of-abels-theorem-better-version
and found a somewhat strange answer, i.e. the only answer.
The answer says that this transformation can change those two polynomials, but why is it acceptable?? It makes the leading coefficient not 1, doesn't it?
Please inform me, thank you.]]>