Difference between revisions of "Talk:Klein invariant J"
Graveolens (talk | contribs) (Created page with "So, the Klein $j$-invariant pops up in a lot of places, and I'm reticent about saying "it has *this* definition in *this* way in *this* context", because like SL(2,Z) it's ver...") |
m (Tom moved page Talk:Klein's invariant J to Talk:Klein invariant J) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
SL(2,Z) it's very, gooey (not easy to quantify that), and (going out on a limb), | SL(2,Z) it's very, gooey (not easy to quantify that), and (going out on a limb), | ||
I myself don't see the world as a panoply of elliptic curves. And where things | I myself don't see the world as a panoply of elliptic curves. And where things | ||
| − | like this shine, are when you can go from one of its contexts to another. | + | like this shine, are when you can go from one of its contexts to another. [[User:Graveolens|Graveolens]] ([[User talk:Graveolens|talk]]) 15:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC) |
| + | |||
| + | == Response to definition of Klein j-invariant == | ||
| + | |||
| + | A lot of things are this way aren't they? You can define $\sin(x)$ from the geometric description and prove it satisfies $y''=-y$ as a consequence or vice versa. I think we should include proofs of all co-equivalent-definitions, at least at start. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Maybe in a super advanced future we could dynamically load content based on the definition that the user wants to see used as the "starting point" of the theory of a function? | ||
Latest revision as of 13:20, 19 January 2015
So, the Klein $j$-invariant pops up in a lot of places, and I'm reticent about saying "it has *this* definition in *this* way in *this* context", because like SL(2,Z) it's very, gooey (not easy to quantify that), and (going out on a limb), I myself don't see the world as a panoply of elliptic curves. And where things like this shine, are when you can go from one of its contexts to another. Graveolens (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Response to definition of Klein j-invariant
A lot of things are this way aren't they? You can define $\sin(x)$ from the geometric description and prove it satisfies $y=-y$ as a consequence or vice versa. I think we should include proofs of all co-equivalent-definitions, at least at start.
Maybe in a super advanced future we could dynamically load content based on the definition that the user wants to see used as the "starting point" of the theory of a function?
