Please help me understand “The Weak Nullstellensatz.”
$begingroup$
I'm studying Lovett. "Abstract Algebra." Chapter 12. Multivariable Polynomial Rings. Section 3. The Nullstellensatz.
The book deduces The weak nullstellensatz from proposition 12.3.2. The author doesn't give proof for the weak nullstellensatz.
Proposition 12.3.2 $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $E$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. If $E$ is a field then it is a finite extension of $F$.
Theorem 12.3.3 (The Weak Nullstellensatz) $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $R$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. Let $M$ be a maximal ideal of $R$. Then the field $R/M$ is a finite extension of $F$. In particular, if $F$ is algebraically closed, then $R/M cong F$.
I don't understand two parts (Actually there are more that I don't understand but I think I can solve the rest myself once I understand these two parts).
1) Why is $R$ a ring? To talk about the ideal in $R$, $R$ should be a ring. I think the author is assuming that $(R, +, [,])$ is a ring in the $F$-algebra structure $(F, +, times, R, + cdot, [,])$, where the first $+$ and $times$ are addition and multiplication in $F$, the second $+$ is an addition in $R$, $cdot$ is a scalar multiplication, and $[,]$ is an $F$-bilinear map in $R$. I know that if $[,]$ is associative then $R$ is a ring. But I can't prove that.
2) Why is $R/M$ an $F$-algebra? To deduce that $R/M$ is a fiinite extension of $F$ from proposition 12.3.2, $R/M$ should be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. I think the author is assuming that $(F, +, times, R/M, +, cdot, [,])$ is an $F$-algebra structure, where for the second $+$,
$$+: R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 + r_2},$$
$$cdot: F times R/M to R/M, (f, overline{r}) mapsto overline{fr},$$ and
$$[,]:R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 r_2}.$$
But if $cdot$ is to be well-defined, shouldn't $M$ be a submodule of $R$? I don't see why $M$ is a submodule.
abstract-algebra modules polynomial-rings
asked Dec 31 '18 at 9:41
zxcvzxcv
1319
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm studying Lovett. "Abstract Algebra." Chapter 12. Multivariable Polynomial Rings. Section 3. The Nullstellensatz.
The book deduces The weak nullstellensatz from proposition 12.3.2. The author doesn't give proof for the weak nullstellensatz.
Proposition 12.3.2 $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $E$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. If $E$ is a field then it is a finite extension of $F$.
Theorem 12.3.3 (The Weak Nullstellensatz) $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $R$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. Let $M$ be a maximal ideal of $R$. Then the field $R/M$ is a finite extension of $F$. In particular, if $F$ is algebraically closed, then $R/M cong F$.
I don't understand two parts (Actually there are more that I don't understand but I think I can solve the rest myself once I understand these two parts).
1) Why is $R$ a ring? To talk about the ideal in $R$, $R$ should be a ring. I think the author is assuming that $(R, +, [,])$ is a ring in the $F$-algebra structure $(F, +, times, R, + cdot, [,])$, where the first $+$ and $times$ are addition and multiplication in $F$, the second $+$ is an addition in $R$, $cdot$ is a scalar multiplication, and $[,]$ is an $F$-bilinear map in $R$. I know that if $[,]$ is associative then $R$ is a ring. But I can't prove that.
2) Why is $R/M$ an $F$-algebra? To deduce that $R/M$ is a fiinite extension of $F$ from proposition 12.3.2, $R/M$ should be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. I think the author is assuming that $(F, +, times, R/M, +, cdot, [,])$ is an $F$-algebra structure, where for the second $+$,
$$+: R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 + r_2},$$
$$cdot: F times R/M to R/M, (f, overline{r}) mapsto overline{fr},$$ and
$$[,]:R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 r_2}.$$
But if $cdot$ is to be well-defined, shouldn't $M$ be a submodule of $R$? I don't see why $M$ is a submodule.
abstract-algebra modules polynomial-rings
asked Dec 31 '18 at 9:41
zxcvzxcv
1319
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
How is an $F$-algebra defined?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:07
$begingroup$
@Kenny Let $R$ be a commutative ring. An $R$-algebra is a pair $(M, [,])$ where $M$ is an $R$-module $M$ and where $[,]$ is a $R$-bilinear map $[,]: M times M to M$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39
$begingroup$
@Kenny $R$-bilinear map is defined as follows: Let $R$ be a commutative ring and let $M$, $N$, $P$ be three $R$-modules. A function $varphi: M times N to P$ is called bilinear if (1) $varphi(m_1+m_2,n)=varphi(m_1,n)+varphi(m_2,n)$ for all $m_1,m_2in M$ and all $nin N$; (2) $varphi(rm,n)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$; (3) $varphi(m,n_1+n_2)=varphi(m,n_1)+varphi(m,n_2)$ for all $min M$ and all $n_1,n_2in N$; (4) $varphi(m,rn)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39
$begingroup$
Is it how it is defined in Lovett?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:43
$begingroup$
@Kenny Yes, I copied down the whole definition.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm studying Lovett. "Abstract Algebra." Chapter 12. Multivariable Polynomial Rings. Section 3. The Nullstellensatz.
The book deduces The weak nullstellensatz from proposition 12.3.2. The author doesn't give proof for the weak nullstellensatz.
Proposition 12.3.2 $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $E$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. If $E$ is a field then it is a finite extension of $F$.
Theorem 12.3.3 (The Weak Nullstellensatz) $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $R$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. Let $M$ be a maximal ideal of $R$. Then the field $R/M$ is a finite extension of $F$. In particular, if $F$ is algebraically closed, then $R/M cong F$.
I don't understand two parts (Actually there are more that I don't understand but I think I can solve the rest myself once I understand these two parts).
1) Why is $R$ a ring? To talk about the ideal in $R$, $R$ should be a ring. I think the author is assuming that $(R, +, [,])$ is a ring in the $F$-algebra structure $(F, +, times, R, + cdot, [,])$, where the first $+$ and $times$ are addition and multiplication in $F$, the second $+$ is an addition in $R$, $cdot$ is a scalar multiplication, and $[,]$ is an $F$-bilinear map in $R$. I know that if $[,]$ is associative then $R$ is a ring. But I can't prove that.
2) Why is $R/M$ an $F$-algebra? To deduce that $R/M$ is a fiinite extension of $F$ from proposition 12.3.2, $R/M$ should be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. I think the author is assuming that $(F, +, times, R/M, +, cdot, [,])$ is an $F$-algebra structure, where for the second $+$,
$$+: R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 + r_2},$$
$$cdot: F times R/M to R/M, (f, overline{r}) mapsto overline{fr},$$ and
$$[,]:R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 r_2}.$$
But if $cdot$ is to be well-defined, shouldn't $M$ be a submodule of $R$? I don't see why $M$ is a submodule.
abstract-algebra modules polynomial-rings
asked Dec 31 '18 at 9:41
zxcvzxcv
1319
$endgroup$
I'm studying Lovett. "Abstract Algebra." Chapter 12. Multivariable Polynomial Rings. Section 3. The Nullstellensatz.
The book deduces The weak nullstellensatz from proposition 12.3.2. The author doesn't give proof for the weak nullstellensatz.
Proposition 12.3.2 $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $E$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. If $E$ is a field then it is a finite extension of $F$.
Theorem 12.3.3 (The Weak Nullstellensatz) $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $R$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. Let $M$ be a maximal ideal of $R$. Then the field $R/M$ is a finite extension of $F$. In particular, if $F$ is algebraically closed, then $R/M cong F$.
I don't understand two parts (Actually there are more that I don't understand but I think I can solve the rest myself once I understand these two parts).
1) Why is $R$ a ring? To talk about the ideal in $R$, $R$ should be a ring. I think the author is assuming that $(R, +, [,])$ is a ring in the $F$-algebra structure $(F, +, times, R, + cdot, [,])$, where the first $+$ and $times$ are addition and multiplication in $F$, the second $+$ is an addition in $R$, $cdot$ is a scalar multiplication, and $[,]$ is an $F$-bilinear map in $R$. I know that if $[,]$ is associative then $R$ is a ring. But I can't prove that.
2) Why is $R/M$ an $F$-algebra? To deduce that $R/M$ is a fiinite extension of $F$ from proposition 12.3.2, $R/M$ should be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. I think the author is assuming that $(F, +, times, R/M, +, cdot, [,])$ is an $F$-algebra structure, where for the second $+$,
$$+: R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 + r_2},$$
$$cdot: F times R/M to R/M, (f, overline{r}) mapsto overline{fr},$$ and
$$[,]:R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 r_2}.$$
But if $cdot$ is to be well-defined, shouldn't $M$ be a submodule of $R$? I don't see why $M$ is a submodule.
abstract-algebra modules polynomial-rings
abstract-algebra modules polynomial-rings
asked Dec 31 '18 at 9:41
zxcvzxcv
1319
asked Dec 31 '18 at 9:41
zxcvzxcv
1319
asked Dec 31 '18 at 9:41
zxcvzxcv
1319
asked Dec 31 '18 at 9:41
zxcvzxcv
1319
asked Dec 31 '18 at 9:41
zxcvzxcv
1319
1319
$begingroup$
How is an $F$-algebra defined?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:07
$begingroup$
@Kenny Let $R$ be a commutative ring. An $R$-algebra is a pair $(M, [,])$ where $M$ is an $R$-module $M$ and where $[,]$ is a $R$-bilinear map $[,]: M times M to M$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39
$begingroup$
@Kenny $R$-bilinear map is defined as follows: Let $R$ be a commutative ring and let $M$, $N$, $P$ be three $R$-modules. A function $varphi: M times N to P$ is called bilinear if (1) $varphi(m_1+m_2,n)=varphi(m_1,n)+varphi(m_2,n)$ for all $m_1,m_2in M$ and all $nin N$; (2) $varphi(rm,n)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$; (3) $varphi(m,n_1+n_2)=varphi(m,n_1)+varphi(m,n_2)$ for all $min M$ and all $n_1,n_2in N$; (4) $varphi(m,rn)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39
$begingroup$
Is it how it is defined in Lovett?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:43
$begingroup$
@Kenny Yes, I copied down the whole definition.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How is an $F$-algebra defined?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:07
$begingroup$
@Kenny Let $R$ be a commutative ring. An $R$-algebra is a pair $(M, [,])$ where $M$ is an $R$-module $M$ and where $[,]$ is a $R$-bilinear map $[,]: M times M to M$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39
$begingroup$
@Kenny $R$-bilinear map is defined as follows: Let $R$ be a commutative ring and let $M$, $N$, $P$ be three $R$-modules. A function $varphi: M times N to P$ is called bilinear if (1) $varphi(m_1+m_2,n)=varphi(m_1,n)+varphi(m_2,n)$ for all $m_1,m_2in M$ and all $nin N$; (2) $varphi(rm,n)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$; (3) $varphi(m,n_1+n_2)=varphi(m,n_1)+varphi(m,n_2)$ for all $min M$ and all $n_1,n_2in N$; (4) $varphi(m,rn)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39
$begingroup$
Is it how it is defined in Lovett?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:43
$begingroup$
@Kenny Yes, I copied down the whole definition.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:45
$begingroup$
How is an $F$-algebra defined?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:07
$begingroup$
How is an $F$-algebra defined?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:07
$begingroup$
@Kenny Let $R$ be a commutative ring. An $R$-algebra is a pair $(M, [,])$ where $M$ is an $R$-module $M$ and where $[,]$ is a $R$-bilinear map $[,]: M times M to M$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39
$begingroup$
@Kenny Let $R$ be a commutative ring. An $R$-algebra is a pair $(M, [,])$ where $M$ is an $R$-module $M$ and where $[,]$ is a $R$-bilinear map $[,]: M times M to M$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39
$begingroup$
@Kenny $R$-bilinear map is defined as follows: Let $R$ be a commutative ring and let $M$, $N$, $P$ be three $R$-modules. A function $varphi: M times N to P$ is called bilinear if (1) $varphi(m_1+m_2,n)=varphi(m_1,n)+varphi(m_2,n)$ for all $m_1,m_2in M$ and all $nin N$; (2) $varphi(rm,n)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$; (3) $varphi(m,n_1+n_2)=varphi(m,n_1)+varphi(m,n_2)$ for all $min M$ and all $n_1,n_2in N$; (4) $varphi(m,rn)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39
$begingroup$
@Kenny $R$-bilinear map is defined as follows: Let $R$ be a commutative ring and let $M$, $N$, $P$ be three $R$-modules. A function $varphi: M times N to P$ is called bilinear if (1) $varphi(m_1+m_2,n)=varphi(m_1,n)+varphi(m_2,n)$ for all $m_1,m_2in M$ and all $nin N$; (2) $varphi(rm,n)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$; (3) $varphi(m,n_1+n_2)=varphi(m,n_1)+varphi(m,n_2)$ for all $min M$ and all $n_1,n_2in N$; (4) $varphi(m,rn)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39
$begingroup$
Is it how it is defined in Lovett?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:43
$begingroup$
Is it how it is defined in Lovett?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:43
$begingroup$
@Kenny Yes, I copied down the whole definition.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:45
$begingroup$
@Kenny Yes, I copied down the whole definition.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:45
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In thm.12.3.3, $R$ should be assumed to be an associative $F$-algebra (with identity), hence it is a ring.
In the presence of identity element, every ideal $M$ of an $F$-algebra $R$ is also a submodule (subspace):
$$lambdacdot m=[(lambdacdot 1),m]in M$$
for any $min M$ and $lambdain F$.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:47
BerciBerci
61.2k23674
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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%2f3057549%2fplease-help-me-understand-the-weak-nullstellensatz%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
$begingroup$
In thm.12.3.3, $R$ should be assumed to be an associative $F$-algebra (with identity), hence it is a ring.
In the presence of identity element, every ideal $M$ of an $F$-algebra $R$ is also a submodule (subspace):
$$lambdacdot m=[(lambdacdot 1),m]in M$$
for any $min M$ and $lambdain F$.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:47
BerciBerci
61.2k23674
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In thm.12.3.3, $R$ should be assumed to be an associative $F$-algebra (with identity), hence it is a ring.
In the presence of identity element, every ideal $M$ of an $F$-algebra $R$ is also a submodule (subspace):
$$lambdacdot m=[(lambdacdot 1),m]in M$$
for any $min M$ and $lambdain F$.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:47
BerciBerci
61.2k23674
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In thm.12.3.3, $R$ should be assumed to be an associative $F$-algebra (with identity), hence it is a ring.
In the presence of identity element, every ideal $M$ of an $F$-algebra $R$ is also a submodule (subspace):
$$lambdacdot m=[(lambdacdot 1),m]in M$$
for any $min M$ and $lambdain F$.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:47
BerciBerci
61.2k23674
$endgroup$
In thm.12.3.3, $R$ should be assumed to be an associative $F$-algebra (with identity), hence it is a ring.
In the presence of identity element, every ideal $M$ of an $F$-algebra $R$ is also a submodule (subspace):
$$lambdacdot m=[(lambdacdot 1),m]in M$$
for any $min M$ and $lambdain F$.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:47
BerciBerci
61.2k23674
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:47
BerciBerci
61.2k23674
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:47
BerciBerci
61.2k23674
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:47
BerciBerci
61.2k23674
61.2k23674
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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%2f3057549%2fplease-help-me-understand-the-weak-nullstellensatz%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
$begingroup$
How is an $F$-algebra defined?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:07
$begingroup$
@Kenny Let $R$ be a commutative ring. An $R$-algebra is a pair $(M, [,])$ where $M$ is an $R$-module $M$ and where $[,]$ is a $R$-bilinear map $[,]: M times M to M$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39
$begingroup$
@Kenny $R$-bilinear map is defined as follows: Let $R$ be a commutative ring and let $M$, $N$, $P$ be three $R$-modules. A function $varphi: M times N to P$ is called bilinear if (1) $varphi(m_1+m_2,n)=varphi(m_1,n)+varphi(m_2,n)$ for all $m_1,m_2in M$ and all $nin N$; (2) $varphi(rm,n)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$; (3) $varphi(m,n_1+n_2)=varphi(m,n_1)+varphi(m,n_2)$ for all $min M$ and all $n_1,n_2in N$; (4) $varphi(m,rn)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39
$begingroup$
Is it how it is defined in Lovett?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:43
$begingroup$
@Kenny Yes, I copied down the whole definition.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:45