Prove that $sigma_T(T_1,T_2)subsetsigma(T_1)timessigma(T_2)$
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $(T_1,T_2)$ be a pair of commuting operators acting on $mathcal{H}$. $(lambda_1,lambda_2)in sigma_T(T_1,T_2)$ if and only if the Koszul-Complex of $(T_1-lambda_1,T_2-lambda_2)$ is not exact. This is equivalent that at least one of the following properties fails:
$(a)$ The equation system
$$(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}=0;; wedge ;; (T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}=0$$
has the unique solution $(x_1,x_2)=(0,0)$.$(b)$ The only solutions for the equation
$$(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}+(T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} y_1 \ y_2 end{pmatrix}=0$$
are of the form
$$begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}=-(T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} s_1 \ s_2 end{pmatrix};;text{and};;begin{pmatrix} y_1 \ y_2 end{pmatrix}=(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} s_1 \ s_2 end{pmatrix},$$
for some $(s_1,s_2)in mathbb{C}^2$.$(c)$ The equation
$$(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}+(T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} y_1 \ y_2 end{pmatrix}=begin{pmatrix} b_1 \ b_2 end{pmatrix},$$
has a solution for every $(b_1,b_2)in mathbb{C}^2$.
I want to prove that
$$sigma_T(T_1,T_2)subsetsigma(T_1)timessigma(T_2)$$
For more informations about the Taylor spectrum see:
J. L. Taylor, A joint spectrum for several commuting operators, J. Functional Anal. 6(1970), 172-191.
we have
functional-analysis operator-theory hilbert-spaces
asked Dec 4 at 10:44
Student
2,4742524
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $(T_1,T_2)$ be a pair of commuting operators acting on $mathcal{H}$. $(lambda_1,lambda_2)in sigma_T(T_1,T_2)$ if and only if the Koszul-Complex of $(T_1-lambda_1,T_2-lambda_2)$ is not exact. This is equivalent that at least one of the following properties fails:
$(a)$ The equation system
$$(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}=0;; wedge ;; (T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}=0$$
has the unique solution $(x_1,x_2)=(0,0)$.$(b)$ The only solutions for the equation
$$(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}+(T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} y_1 \ y_2 end{pmatrix}=0$$
are of the form
$$begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}=-(T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} s_1 \ s_2 end{pmatrix};;text{and};;begin{pmatrix} y_1 \ y_2 end{pmatrix}=(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} s_1 \ s_2 end{pmatrix},$$
for some $(s_1,s_2)in mathbb{C}^2$.$(c)$ The equation
$$(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}+(T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} y_1 \ y_2 end{pmatrix}=begin{pmatrix} b_1 \ b_2 end{pmatrix},$$
has a solution for every $(b_1,b_2)in mathbb{C}^2$.
I want to prove that
$$sigma_T(T_1,T_2)subsetsigma(T_1)timessigma(T_2)$$
For more informations about the Taylor spectrum see:
J. L. Taylor, A joint spectrum for several commuting operators, J. Functional Anal. 6(1970), 172-191.
we have
functional-analysis operator-theory hilbert-spaces
asked Dec 4 at 10:44
Student
2,4742524
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $(T_1,T_2)$ be a pair of commuting operators acting on $mathcal{H}$. $(lambda_1,lambda_2)in sigma_T(T_1,T_2)$ if and only if the Koszul-Complex of $(T_1-lambda_1,T_2-lambda_2)$ is not exact. This is equivalent that at least one of the following properties fails:
$(a)$ The equation system
$$(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}=0;; wedge ;; (T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}=0$$
has the unique solution $(x_1,x_2)=(0,0)$.$(b)$ The only solutions for the equation
$$(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}+(T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} y_1 \ y_2 end{pmatrix}=0$$
are of the form
$$begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}=-(T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} s_1 \ s_2 end{pmatrix};;text{and};;begin{pmatrix} y_1 \ y_2 end{pmatrix}=(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} s_1 \ s_2 end{pmatrix},$$
for some $(s_1,s_2)in mathbb{C}^2$.$(c)$ The equation
$$(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}+(T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} y_1 \ y_2 end{pmatrix}=begin{pmatrix} b_1 \ b_2 end{pmatrix},$$
has a solution for every $(b_1,b_2)in mathbb{C}^2$.
I want to prove that
$$sigma_T(T_1,T_2)subsetsigma(T_1)timessigma(T_2)$$
For more informations about the Taylor spectrum see:
J. L. Taylor, A joint spectrum for several commuting operators, J. Functional Anal. 6(1970), 172-191.
we have
functional-analysis operator-theory hilbert-spaces
asked Dec 4 at 10:44
Student
2,4742524
Let $(T_1,T_2)$ be a pair of commuting operators acting on $mathcal{H}$. $(lambda_1,lambda_2)in sigma_T(T_1,T_2)$ if and only if the Koszul-Complex of $(T_1-lambda_1,T_2-lambda_2)$ is not exact. This is equivalent that at least one of the following properties fails:
$(a)$ The equation system
$$(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}=0;; wedge ;; (T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}=0$$
has the unique solution $(x_1,x_2)=(0,0)$.$(b)$ The only solutions for the equation
$$(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}+(T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} y_1 \ y_2 end{pmatrix}=0$$
are of the form
$$begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}=-(T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} s_1 \ s_2 end{pmatrix};;text{and};;begin{pmatrix} y_1 \ y_2 end{pmatrix}=(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} s_1 \ s_2 end{pmatrix},$$
for some $(s_1,s_2)in mathbb{C}^2$.$(c)$ The equation
$$(T_1-lambda_1)begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 end{pmatrix}+(T_2-lambda_2)begin{pmatrix} y_1 \ y_2 end{pmatrix}=begin{pmatrix} b_1 \ b_2 end{pmatrix},$$
has a solution for every $(b_1,b_2)in mathbb{C}^2$.
I want to prove that
$$sigma_T(T_1,T_2)subsetsigma(T_1)timessigma(T_2)$$
For more informations about the Taylor spectrum see:
J. L. Taylor, A joint spectrum for several commuting operators, J. Functional Anal. 6(1970), 172-191.
we have
functional-analysis operator-theory hilbert-spaces
functional-analysis operator-theory hilbert-spaces
asked Dec 4 at 10:44
Student
2,4742524
asked Dec 4 at 10:44
Student
2,4742524
edited Dec 4 at 16:58
asked Dec 4 at 10:44
Student
2,4742524
asked Dec 4 at 10:44
Student
2,4742524
asked Dec 4 at 10:44
Student
2,4742524
2,4742524
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
You seem to be assuming that $mathcal H=mathbb C^2$. There is no need for that.
Take $(lambda,mu)$ such that at least $lambdanotinsigma(T_1)$ or $munotinsigma(T_2)$. Suppose first that $lambdanotinsigma(T_1)$ (the other case is similar). So $T_1-lambda I$ is invertible. For typing simplicity, from now on I will write $T_1$ instead of $T_1-lambda I$, and $T_2$ instead of $T_2-mu I$.
As $T_1$ is invertible, $ker T_1={0}$, so
$$tag1
ker T_1cap ker T_2={0}.
$$
For the second condition, if $T_1x+T_2y=0$, then $x=-T_1^{-1}T_2y=T_2T_1^{-1}y$. Let $z=T_1^{-1}y$. Then
$$tag2
x=-T_2z, y=T_1z,
$$
so the second condition is satisfied.
Finally, since $T_1$ is onto, the sum of the images of $T_1$ and $T_2$ is $mathcal H$. Together with $(1)$ and $(2)$, this shows that if $(lambda,mu)notinsigma(T_1)timessigma(T_2)$, then $(lambda,mu)notinsigma_T(T_1,T_2)$. Thus
$$
sigma_T(T_1,T_2)subsetsigma(T_1)times sigma(T_2).
$$
answered Dec 4 at 18:07
Martin Argerami
123k1176174
If $mathcal H$ is not $mathbb{C}^2$ the inclusion is not in general true? Also I don't see where exactely you use the fact that $mathcal H =mathbb{C}^2$? Thank you for your help.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:49
In the paper of Taylor $X$ is a Banach space.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:53
Did you read my answer? In your question, you used $mathcal H=mathbb C^2$; in my answer, I'm saying that such a thing is not necessary.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 4 at 18:53
Now I understand. Yes in my question I use $mathbb{C}^2$ in order to understand with an example.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:58
I don't really know what $sigma_T(mathbf T)$ is. I would still expect the same argument to work, though.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 4 at 20:44
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3025414%2fprove-that-sigma-tt-1-t-2-subset-sigmat-1-times-sigmat-2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
You seem to be assuming that $mathcal H=mathbb C^2$. There is no need for that.
Take $(lambda,mu)$ such that at least $lambdanotinsigma(T_1)$ or $munotinsigma(T_2)$. Suppose first that $lambdanotinsigma(T_1)$ (the other case is similar). So $T_1-lambda I$ is invertible. For typing simplicity, from now on I will write $T_1$ instead of $T_1-lambda I$, and $T_2$ instead of $T_2-mu I$.
As $T_1$ is invertible, $ker T_1={0}$, so
$$tag1
ker T_1cap ker T_2={0}.
$$
For the second condition, if $T_1x+T_2y=0$, then $x=-T_1^{-1}T_2y=T_2T_1^{-1}y$. Let $z=T_1^{-1}y$. Then
$$tag2
x=-T_2z, y=T_1z,
$$
so the second condition is satisfied.
Finally, since $T_1$ is onto, the sum of the images of $T_1$ and $T_2$ is $mathcal H$. Together with $(1)$ and $(2)$, this shows that if $(lambda,mu)notinsigma(T_1)timessigma(T_2)$, then $(lambda,mu)notinsigma_T(T_1,T_2)$. Thus
$$
sigma_T(T_1,T_2)subsetsigma(T_1)times sigma(T_2).
$$
answered Dec 4 at 18:07
Martin Argerami
123k1176174
If $mathcal H$ is not $mathbb{C}^2$ the inclusion is not in general true? Also I don't see where exactely you use the fact that $mathcal H =mathbb{C}^2$? Thank you for your help.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:49
In the paper of Taylor $X$ is a Banach space.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:53
Did you read my answer? In your question, you used $mathcal H=mathbb C^2$; in my answer, I'm saying that such a thing is not necessary.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 4 at 18:53
Now I understand. Yes in my question I use $mathbb{C}^2$ in order to understand with an example.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:58
I don't really know what $sigma_T(mathbf T)$ is. I would still expect the same argument to work, though.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 4 at 20:44
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
You seem to be assuming that $mathcal H=mathbb C^2$. There is no need for that.
Take $(lambda,mu)$ such that at least $lambdanotinsigma(T_1)$ or $munotinsigma(T_2)$. Suppose first that $lambdanotinsigma(T_1)$ (the other case is similar). So $T_1-lambda I$ is invertible. For typing simplicity, from now on I will write $T_1$ instead of $T_1-lambda I$, and $T_2$ instead of $T_2-mu I$.
As $T_1$ is invertible, $ker T_1={0}$, so
$$tag1
ker T_1cap ker T_2={0}.
$$
For the second condition, if $T_1x+T_2y=0$, then $x=-T_1^{-1}T_2y=T_2T_1^{-1}y$. Let $z=T_1^{-1}y$. Then
$$tag2
x=-T_2z, y=T_1z,
$$
so the second condition is satisfied.
Finally, since $T_1$ is onto, the sum of the images of $T_1$ and $T_2$ is $mathcal H$. Together with $(1)$ and $(2)$, this shows that if $(lambda,mu)notinsigma(T_1)timessigma(T_2)$, then $(lambda,mu)notinsigma_T(T_1,T_2)$. Thus
$$
sigma_T(T_1,T_2)subsetsigma(T_1)times sigma(T_2).
$$
answered Dec 4 at 18:07
Martin Argerami
123k1176174
If $mathcal H$ is not $mathbb{C}^2$ the inclusion is not in general true? Also I don't see where exactely you use the fact that $mathcal H =mathbb{C}^2$? Thank you for your help.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:49
In the paper of Taylor $X$ is a Banach space.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:53
Did you read my answer? In your question, you used $mathcal H=mathbb C^2$; in my answer, I'm saying that such a thing is not necessary.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 4 at 18:53
Now I understand. Yes in my question I use $mathbb{C}^2$ in order to understand with an example.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:58
I don't really know what $sigma_T(mathbf T)$ is. I would still expect the same argument to work, though.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 4 at 20:44
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
You seem to be assuming that $mathcal H=mathbb C^2$. There is no need for that.
Take $(lambda,mu)$ such that at least $lambdanotinsigma(T_1)$ or $munotinsigma(T_2)$. Suppose first that $lambdanotinsigma(T_1)$ (the other case is similar). So $T_1-lambda I$ is invertible. For typing simplicity, from now on I will write $T_1$ instead of $T_1-lambda I$, and $T_2$ instead of $T_2-mu I$.
As $T_1$ is invertible, $ker T_1={0}$, so
$$tag1
ker T_1cap ker T_2={0}.
$$
For the second condition, if $T_1x+T_2y=0$, then $x=-T_1^{-1}T_2y=T_2T_1^{-1}y$. Let $z=T_1^{-1}y$. Then
$$tag2
x=-T_2z, y=T_1z,
$$
so the second condition is satisfied.
Finally, since $T_1$ is onto, the sum of the images of $T_1$ and $T_2$ is $mathcal H$. Together with $(1)$ and $(2)$, this shows that if $(lambda,mu)notinsigma(T_1)timessigma(T_2)$, then $(lambda,mu)notinsigma_T(T_1,T_2)$. Thus
$$
sigma_T(T_1,T_2)subsetsigma(T_1)times sigma(T_2).
$$
answered Dec 4 at 18:07
Martin Argerami
123k1176174
You seem to be assuming that $mathcal H=mathbb C^2$. There is no need for that.
Take $(lambda,mu)$ such that at least $lambdanotinsigma(T_1)$ or $munotinsigma(T_2)$. Suppose first that $lambdanotinsigma(T_1)$ (the other case is similar). So $T_1-lambda I$ is invertible. For typing simplicity, from now on I will write $T_1$ instead of $T_1-lambda I$, and $T_2$ instead of $T_2-mu I$.
As $T_1$ is invertible, $ker T_1={0}$, so
$$tag1
ker T_1cap ker T_2={0}.
$$
For the second condition, if $T_1x+T_2y=0$, then $x=-T_1^{-1}T_2y=T_2T_1^{-1}y$. Let $z=T_1^{-1}y$. Then
$$tag2
x=-T_2z, y=T_1z,
$$
so the second condition is satisfied.
Finally, since $T_1$ is onto, the sum of the images of $T_1$ and $T_2$ is $mathcal H$. Together with $(1)$ and $(2)$, this shows that if $(lambda,mu)notinsigma(T_1)timessigma(T_2)$, then $(lambda,mu)notinsigma_T(T_1,T_2)$. Thus
$$
sigma_T(T_1,T_2)subsetsigma(T_1)times sigma(T_2).
$$
answered Dec 4 at 18:07
Martin Argerami
123k1176174
edited Dec 5 at 14:44
answered Dec 4 at 18:07
Martin Argerami
123k1176174
answered Dec 4 at 18:07
Martin Argerami
123k1176174
answered Dec 4 at 18:07
Martin Argerami
123k1176174
123k1176174
If $mathcal H$ is not $mathbb{C}^2$ the inclusion is not in general true? Also I don't see where exactely you use the fact that $mathcal H =mathbb{C}^2$? Thank you for your help.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:49
In the paper of Taylor $X$ is a Banach space.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:53
Did you read my answer? In your question, you used $mathcal H=mathbb C^2$; in my answer, I'm saying that such a thing is not necessary.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 4 at 18:53
Now I understand. Yes in my question I use $mathbb{C}^2$ in order to understand with an example.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:58
I don't really know what $sigma_T(mathbf T)$ is. I would still expect the same argument to work, though.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 4 at 20:44
|
show 2 more comments
If $mathcal H$ is not $mathbb{C}^2$ the inclusion is not in general true? Also I don't see where exactely you use the fact that $mathcal H =mathbb{C}^2$? Thank you for your help.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:49
In the paper of Taylor $X$ is a Banach space.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:53
Did you read my answer? In your question, you used $mathcal H=mathbb C^2$; in my answer, I'm saying that such a thing is not necessary.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 4 at 18:53
Now I understand. Yes in my question I use $mathbb{C}^2$ in order to understand with an example.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:58
I don't really know what $sigma_T(mathbf T)$ is. I would still expect the same argument to work, though.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 4 at 20:44
If $mathcal H$ is not $mathbb{C}^2$ the inclusion is not in general true? Also I don't see where exactely you use the fact that $mathcal H =mathbb{C}^2$? Thank you for your help.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:49
If $mathcal H$ is not $mathbb{C}^2$ the inclusion is not in general true? Also I don't see where exactely you use the fact that $mathcal H =mathbb{C}^2$? Thank you for your help.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:49
In the paper of Taylor $X$ is a Banach space.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:53
In the paper of Taylor $X$ is a Banach space.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:53
Did you read my answer? In your question, you used $mathcal H=mathbb C^2$; in my answer, I'm saying that such a thing is not necessary.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 4 at 18:53
Did you read my answer? In your question, you used $mathcal H=mathbb C^2$; in my answer, I'm saying that such a thing is not necessary.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 4 at 18:53
Now I understand. Yes in my question I use $mathbb{C}^2$ in order to understand with an example.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:58
Now I understand. Yes in my question I use $mathbb{C}^2$ in order to understand with an example.
– Student
Dec 4 at 18:58
I don't really know what $sigma_T(mathbf T)$ is. I would still expect the same argument to work, though.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 4 at 20:44
I don't really know what $sigma_T(mathbf T)$ is. I would still expect the same argument to work, though.
– Martin Argerami
Dec 4 at 20:44
|
show 2 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3025414%2fprove-that-sigma-tt-1-t-2-subset-sigmat-1-times-sigmat-2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
