Difference between revisions of "Talk:Klein invariant J"
(→Response to definition of Klein j-invariant) |
(→Response to definition of Klein j-invariant) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
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. | 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" | + | 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? |
Revision as of 15:48, 9 October 2014
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?
