Timeline for Counting groups of a given size
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 13:58 | history | edited | Erik the Outgolfer | CC BY-SA 4.0 | MathJax |
| Jun 23, 2018 at 21:02 | answer | added | Jonathan Frech | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 28, 2015 at 23:09 | vote | accept | Dennis | ||
| Oct 5, 2015 at 5:37 | answer | added | Dennis | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 15:39 | answer | added | Andrea Biondo | timeline score: 17 | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 21:18 | comment | added | Cabbie407 | Okay, I guess that +2 is not defined for G but for C2. So it is actually mod 2. I thought both examples meant that group G defined before. | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 21:16 | comment | added | Alex A. | @Cabbie407 Consider the integers modulo 2, (Z/2Z if you're familiar with that notation). Everything divisible by 2 is 0 and everything else is 1. So 1*1=1 and 1+1=2=0. * is denoting the multiplicative operation in that group, while × is denoting typical integer multiplication. | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 21:10 | comment | added | Cabbie407 | Well, I still don't get it. It says 1*1=1 and 1+1=0 (in the Example of the isomorphic group with * being that star thingy and the + having a <sup>2</sup> beside it. They can't both be x. ;) | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 21:01 | comment | added | Dennis | @Cabbie407 It's 1 × 1, not 1 + 1. | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 20:58 | comment | added | Cabbie407 | Why is (1+1)%3 not 2? | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 21:56 | comment | added | Level River St | @flawr the undocumented monkeys_on_typewriters builtin covers everything not covered by the documented builtins. | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 21:35 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCodeGolf/status/646075232546127873 | ||
| Sep 21, 2015 at 18:51 | comment | added | flawr | Some say that there is no builtin Mathematica does not have, but this is still subject to research. Other myths say that Mathematica creates the builtins by reading the programmers mind, but this too has not yet been confirmed. | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 18:50 | comment | added | Martin Ender | Quoting Peter (from a comment on the sandbox post of Evolution of OEIS): "If you look at the "formula" and "program" sections for e.g. A000001, A000003, A000019 then an answer which doesn't use specialised builtins will require a lot of research." (Emphasis mine.) ;) | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 18:46 | comment | added | Alex A. | Of course Mathematica has a builtin for this. :/ | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 18:40 | history | asked | Dennis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |